Prev
Next

Counterpunch: the world has left the Coalition behind

Mark Dreyfus

by Mark Dreyfus

05 Dec 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Carbon Emissions, Carbon Tax, Climate Change, Doha, Global Warming, Greg Combet

88 comments

A notable absence of truth in the climate change debate has come from the Opposition’s Greg Hunt all year, and his latest misrepresentations are true to form.

Vintage Bill Leak circa July 2012…

No personal offence to Greg, but it does pay to do your homework occasionally. I have represented Australia at many of this year’s international climate change negotiations, so attending Doha on behalf of the Climate Change Minister is fairly logical and not so remarkable.

We understand your motives. You don’t have much to hang your hat on. First, let’s deal with the Opposition’s pretence – or is it ignorance? - that there is no international action.

As we sit here in Doha, Australia is working with governments from 197 countries to create a new international agreement by 2015 that will legally bind all nations – developed and developing – in the monumental task of cutting carbon pollution to slow down climate change.

Yes, Greg, you might have missed it, but that does include the US, China, the EU and India. They’re all here today. It’s not a hallucination.

While the world puts together the nuts and bolts of this agreement, the vast array of action to price carbon across individual countries is escalating year on year.

Rather than just make it up like the Opposition, let’s rely on a sprinkling of facts and figures:

From next year, more than 50 national or sub-national regions, including all of Europe and beyond, will have emissions trading schemes or a carbon price, covering a combined population of around 1.1 billion people.

China is now the world’s biggest investor in renewable energy, complementing emissions trading starting up in seven cities and provinces. These “micro schemes”, as Greg Hunt calls them, cover 250 million people and represent the world’s second largest emissions trading scheme, which China intends to expand nationally scheme after 2015.

The Opposition also clings obsessively to the misguided idea that the United States is not acting and will not act. This would be news to President Obama.

I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behaviour and carbon emissions. Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact. That will take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere.  We doubled the production of clean energy, which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation. And we continue to invest in potential breakthrough technologies that could further remove carbon from our atmosphere. But we haven’t done as much as we need to. So you can expect that you’ll hear more from me in the coming months and years about how we can shape an agenda that garners bipartisan support and helps move this agenda forward.


– President Barack Obama, 14 November, 2012.

A hostile Congress refusing to pass climate laws has resulted in the Obama Administration pursuing less economically efficient measures to cut pollution. It is not by preference as Greg Hunt wrongly asserts.

For the record, note the emissions trading schemes in 10 US states: California (economy-wide), and in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, covering the power sector, alongside national EPA standards regulating pollution from the largest industrial emitters.

Greg Hunt’s catalogue of falsehoods goes on and on and we could spend all day dissecting them. Suffice to say he wants us to see the hole and never the doughnut.

He urges us to stop wasting our efforts with carefully designed, economically responsible, internationally-linked, pollution cutting schemes and non-existent international climate negotiations.

He has the answer: rainforests. A simple plan to protect the great rainforests of the world - “the single biggest, fastest thing the world can do to reduce emissions right now” he says.

And sure enough, it’s as simple as the other measures in the Opposition’s Direct Action plan to cure climate change. It’s right up there with Mr Abbott’s plan to carpet all of Australia’s productive farmland with trees or the miracle of soil carbon which will enable Australia to magically bury most of its carbon pollution, even though the CSIRO says this technique, if we can get it to work, would reduce less than 1% of our emissions.

When all of these illusions have melted away, and the fear campaign drained of its last drop of political potency, we will finally come face to face with the one, single certainty that Australian voters already sense.

For all the denials, for all the hyperbole, for all the muddying of the waters, if their moment arrives, Mr Hunt and the Opposition will be keeping Labor’s price on carbon.

Comments on this post will close at 8pm AEDT.

Most commented

88 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:12am | 05/12/12

      ‘We understand your motives. You don’t have much to hang your hat on. ‘

      As I said yesterday, Greg Hunt was simply doing the good old LNP trick of making something out of nothing !
      Look back on the last week of parliament - what a bloody obscene waste of good administration time that was ?  All in the hopeless cause of helping the bad loser duds in the LNP regain their birthright !

      Reply

    • Seano says:

      06:11am | 05/12/12

      Come on dude, spending the whole week chasing the PM over past wrong doings with no evidence whatsoever whilst not scrutinising the government over legislation and not even bothering to turn up for the reading of the NDIS bill is what oppositions are supposed to do…...oh wait….um scratch that.

    • harry says:

      07:27am | 05/12/12

      I can’t believe the opposition are still beating this dead horse. Everyone now knows that Abbott was trying to con us on the Carbon Tax armageddon. Where you fooled by Abbott ????

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:34am | 05/12/12

      I hope he keeps up the good work over there acotrel and comes back with a better plan than a Carbon tax that saves 0.0% of global emissions and has helped push the Australian economy down the toilet with lost investment and loss of jobs overseas and a mining tax that raises absolutely nothing.

    • JoniM says:

      09:26am | 05/12/12

      So, Mark Dreyfus , are you sure you won’t be abstaining on the vote for any Doha recommendations ? Western Sydney seats are still in jeopardy here !
      You might have missed Faulkner’s speech yesterday about the search for some integrity in the ALP ?  This speech is now becoming an annual event !
      To summarise it for you Mark…......“the ALP doesn’t have any integrity, but lets pretend we are about to fix that, again !”

    • Greg in Chengdu says:

      10:57am | 05/12/12

      So from the looks of it China is doing more than we are certainly in actually investing in renewable energies. How much of our Carbon tax is being invested.
      Oh thats right 0.
      The government promised to RESEARCH renewable energies a promise it broke after the last Budget realignment due to the huge shortfall.
      And yet the Labor apologists still think the Carbon tax is all about the environment.

    • Greg in Chengdu says:

      11:06am | 05/12/12

      “And sure enough, it’s as simple as the other measures in the Opposition’s Direct Action plan to cure climate change. It’s right up there with Mr Abbott’s plan to carpet all of Australia’s productive farmland with trees or the miracle of soil carbon which will enable Australia to magically bury most of its carbon pollution, even though the CSIRO says this technique, if we can get it to work, would reduce less than 1% of our emissions”
      trees do absorb Carbon not only that but help stop erosion by lowering the water table which s especially helpful on Farm land Abbott hasn’t mentioned anything about using farmland but planting trees around farm land along fenc line and boundaries would be a perfect solution as for the burying of Carbon only reducing emissions by 1% thats still twice as much as the government promised to do at the latest conference and burying Carbon is only 1 of many schemes the Libs have put together.
      They have actually promised to and come up with ways to cut emissions and clean up the environment where Labors solution is the tax end of story.

    • WebbyMoto says:

      11:45am | 05/12/12

      And yet, in contrast, that time Ms Gillard stood and ranted and raved, claiming how big of a misogynist Mr Abbott was, and all the times the other Labor MP’s launched personal attacks at Coalition Members - that was a satisfactory use of Parliamentary time? That wasn’t an obscene waste of good administration time?

      The fact is that neither party can take the high road here, both waste time in Parliament with pointless and wasteful tit-for-tat. I do, however, consider the possible questionable behaviour of the Prime Minister in regards to a Union Slush Fund to be something the public should be aware of - where a paper trail exists that at the very least calls into question her behaviour and account of events. I do not consider a slanderous attack on the Opposition Leader claiming he is a sexist without proof to be something worth doing.

      You shouldn’t pretend that Labor are the fine upstanding citizens of Parliament acotrel, because if you think the Coalition are swimming in the mud, I can assure you that Labor is right there with them, side-by-side in the sludge. To think otherwise is misguided partisanship.

    • Bruce says:

      02:54pm | 05/12/12

      Will there be a debate on how to reduce the worlds human population ? Sure way to help reduce the human impact on climate change !

    • Cobbler says:

      04:01pm | 05/12/12

      Greg in Chengdu says “They have actually promised to and come up with ways to cut emissions and clean up the environment where Labors solution is the tax end of story.”

      Um Greg, you do realise that the Carbon Tax is a free Market mechanism which is (or at least used to be) pretty much the whole reason why the liberal party exists.  Not only that, Abbott said that it was the best measure of available measures back in the days before the 2007 election.

      Abbotts direct action plan is ludicrously inadequate.  A bit like his FTTN plan for the NBN, it will cost more and deliver less.  it’s like trying to stop the tide coming in with a piece of string.

    • Mike says:

      05:54pm | 05/12/12

      “free market”

      You keep using those words. I don’t think they mean what you think they mean.

    • cheap white trash says:

      05:19am | 05/12/12

      I have represented Australia at many of this year’s international climate change negotiations, so attending Doha on behalf of the Climate Change Minister is fairly logical and not so remarkable.

      Yeah another free trip for all those free loaders pushing this CC GW scam.
      Did you fly to all these BS meetings?Sydney to Doha let me see,The total carbon emissions for a flight from Sydney, Australia to Doha, Qatar is 2,882 lbs CO2.
      This is equivalent to 1,307 kg CO2e or 1.31 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents.
      Now you add up all the other free loaders flying there,whats the Total out put of CO2,Mark?
      China is now the world’s biggest investor in renewable energy, complementing emissions trading starting up in seven cities and provinces,
      Nice to see you read alot Mark,Headline in the Bastion of Climate Change Newspapers The Guardian Nov20th.
      World Resources Institute identifies 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India.
      More than 1,000 coal-fired power plants are being planned worldwide, new research has revealed.
      The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China – the world’s biggest emitter. India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is seeing a slowdown in its coal investments after a vast building programme in the past decade.“This is definitely not in line with a safe climate scenario – it would put us on a really dangerous trajectory,” said the WRI’s Ailun Yang, who compiled the report, considered to be the most COMPREHENSIVE in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.
      A bit of truth in this whole sorry saga of CC or GW wouldn’t go astray Mark.
      But i guess its all to hard.
      MARK.. just remember. It’s not a lie… if you believe it…

      Reply

    • Pieman says:

      07:12am | 05/12/12

      Yes - and the plane wouldn’t have taken off if Mark wasn’t on it.  So every OUNCE of carbon was down to him.

    • Mr. Jordon says:

      07:12am | 05/12/12

      And yet, Tony Abbott has said just two weeks ago the that Australia will sign Kyoto2 under a government he leads.

    • dovif says:

      07:21am | 05/12/12

      LOL @ Dreyfus’s claim that California is doing something about Climate change

      Dispite all the free trip that Dreyfus had, he must not have been to California where there is 2.3 cars per household and where 8-9 lane highways are the norm.

      Note in Doha, the Australian PM did not even send the climate change minister and recommended almost NO cuts, LOL, the fact is Copenhagen was a massive failure and Doha will be the same, that is why Dufus got to go

      Fact is the ALP wanted to do nothing about climate change, as Brown said, the Greens were the only party who took a climate change policy to the last election, and they forced it onto the Gillard government to keep Julia in her job

      If Julia did not have to keep her, or have some morals, we would not have a carbon tax today

    • Carl Palmer says:

      01:55pm | 05/12/12

      @cheap white trash says: 05:19am | 05/12/12

      You forgot to add that it’s all Abbott’s fault.

    • TimB says:

      05:27am | 05/12/12

      What hypocrisy. You sit there and you talk about lies, ‘muddying the waters’ and hyperbole.

      No-one else does hyperbole better than your very own taxpayer-funded Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery. The fact that this fool is the Governments official climate change spokesperson is laughable. Remember the major cities that were supposed to be out of water by now?

      ‘Muddying the waters’ - Like going on and on about China’s renewable energy, whlist utterly failing to mention how many coal plants China continues to open as well. Ignoring the fact that their emissions rose by 9.9% last year.

      And lies about Obama’s planned action on climate change by selectively quoting him. You want to know what else Obama said?

      ““I think the American people right now have been so focused, and will continue to be focused, on our economy and jobs and growth that ... if the message is somehow, we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s gonna go for that,” he said. “I won’t go for that.”“

      Doing his best to cut emissions, without going out of his way to hit the economy- If only your government had bothered to follow the same strategy.

      Because at the end of the day, the overall world emissions are still rising. And you insist on undercutting our cheap energy advantage for absolutely no practical gain. Way to go genius.

      Reply

    • james says:

      09:55am | 05/12/12

      Its cheaper and easier to do it now, rather than having to take more drastic changes in the future.

      Both sides agree on the cause of global warming, and have 5% bi-partisan reduction targets to 2020.
      My concern is how direct action will be able to be afforded after 2020 with new binding targets to be signed in the coming years, given that the coalition have capped spending for the program at around 3bn per annum.

    • ProfoundBS says:

      10:04am | 05/12/12

      Actually the gain is fairly obvious - that by directing our efforts and revenue to towards R&D so that we are the first to the technology of the future, thereby ensuring our “cheap energy advantage” into the future.
      Mind you TimB you and all of us will be well gone by that time so it doesn’t really matter what we do now for the future, does it? Someone else’s problem, right?

    • Jay2 says:

      10:08am | 05/12/12

      @TimB, agree 100%.  The fact Flannery has been caught with his proverbial pants down over some of his outrageous “scientific” assertions is just an incovenient truth to those real deniers of truth.  Makes you wonder who really should be labelled “climate change deniers and moronic sceptics”.
      As far as the carbon tax (which is miraculously going to lower the world’s omissions), we haven’t even felt the full brunt of it. The fact is, building homes has gone up thousands thanks to the CT, but you don’t and won’t read about that in your local paper, but quietly trades are putting up prices , especially offsetting particular building materials and production/transport costs.
        My hairdresser has raised her prices now, by approx 4%, to offset her rising costs due to the carbon tax, which isn’t a lot, but it all adds up. The fact is most prices rises, for now applied to general weekly living, are modest adding on average between 10c to 30c (by my calculations) to most, so it might average out to maybe $9.00 plus per week at the moment. My local council(not included in my weekly estimation) has added their two cents worth on our rates(if ONLY it was two cents..)  PLUS it now has gone up to $28.00 to dump an old mattress (not to worry, our state forests and reserves that only a minisicule % of the population can actually use is proving to be quite the sad host for mattresses and tvs!) and $10.00 per tv on top of the price rise in generally tipping etc etc.
      Costs will go up when the carbon tax is fully implemented, but for me this tax achieves NOTHING and is just another tax, when I honestly feel I’m being taxed and levied at every turn, by every level of Government, whether it is Federally, State or Local.

      To use an anaology, it’s like one school teacher giving your child an forty minutes worth of homework, which seems perfectly reasonable until you realise that five other teachers have given from 40 - 60 minutes worth of homework as well, then it becomes an untenable situation. That’s EXACTLY how I feel about the carbon tax, just one more unecessary tax that just cements my growing conviction, the harder you work in this country, the more you will get punished in the hip pocket for it.

      Lastlly, everybody needs to calm down about the ghastly increased emissions from China and India, because don’t you know the carbon tax we pay will offset that nicely…...Now, ‘bout that bridge I have for sale…

    • Charlie says:

      10:08am | 05/12/12

      So, Tim B, what is it that you would have us do instead?  Or is this yet another rant?  Do you have a point?  A reason for living?  Are you contributing to this issue?  Or are you just waving your arms like a madman.  Like so many of you on this website.

    • TimB says:

      12:12pm | 05/12/12

      ‘Actually the gain is fairly obvious - that by directing our efforts and revenue to towards R&D so that we are the first to the technology of the future, thereby ensuring our “cheap energy advantage” into the future. ‘

      And how are we going to do that when the Chinese eventually undercut our manufacturing processes (again) and produce all the tech for far cheaper than what we can?

      Of course this assumes that renewables can even approach the efficiency required. Apart from Hydro (which the Greens hate, surprise surprise), no technology is even close.

      ‘So, Tim B, what is it that you would have us do instead? ‘

      Nuclear power, and tell the Greens to shut the hell up. If the world is warming as badly as they claim, they shouldn’t give a damn how we solve the supposed issue. A drowning man will cling to anything to stay afloat.

      Keep our economy going through uranium mining, and secure the baseload power our country will need for the future.

      Done and dusted. Next.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      12:34pm | 05/12/12

      @TimB, the Greens don’t have an issue with Hydro, they have an issue around creating dams for Hydro that will never be needed. People claim Brown was wrong on that in Tas, but Tas is able to export a large amount of the power produced from the existing dams.

    • cheap white trash says:

      05:39am | 05/12/12

      As we sit here in Doha, Australia is working with governments from 197 countries to create a new international agreement by 2015 that will legally bind all nations – developed and developing – in the monumental task of cutting carbon pollution to slow down climate change.

      And in the real World Mark,from the Guardian Newspaper Nov 20th
      World Resources Institute identifies 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India.
      The huge planned expansion comes despite warnings from politicians, scientists and campaigners that the planet’s fast-rising carbon emissions must peak within a few years if runaway climate change is to be avoided and that fossil fuel assets risk becoming worthless if international action on global warming moves forward.
      The World Resources Institute (WRI) identified 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India. The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China – the world’s biggest emitter. India is planning 455 new plants compared to 363 in China, which is seeing a slowdown in its coal investments after a vast building programme in the past decade.

      So Mark, just keep preaching to the True Believers…..
      MARK, just remember. It’s not a lie… if you believe it…

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      05:41am | 05/12/12

      Did I miss something? Where did Obama state he supports a price on carbon?

      Reply

    • Mr. Jordon says:

      07:09am | 05/12/12

      Yep, you missed something.

    • Murray says:

      07:25am | 05/12/12

      Obama’s statement could have been from Abbott. As you say nothing mentioned about a carbon tax.

    • JoniM says:

      10:09am | 05/12/12

      Spot on Andrew !
      Simply more ALP lies ! Faulkner must be so proud !
      What Obama actually said was…..““I think the American people right now have been so focused, and will continue to be focused, on our economy and jobs and growth that ... if the message is somehow, we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s gonna go for that,” he said. “I won’t go for that.”“

    • craig2 says:

      05:53am | 05/12/12

      Nothing like a condescending answer in reply, I guess you have all the answers Mark. The half truths go both ways so please spare us your false indignation, do you really believe china and India will stifle their economic growth to satisfy your policy outcomes? Sorry Mark, here’s a big coal lump right between the eyes, ouch!

      Reply

    • Lisa says:

      05:54am | 05/12/12

      If Doha was so important how come you went and not Combet?

      Reply

    • Brad says:

      06:54am | 05/12/12

      This is your portfolio Mr Combet! Why was it so important for you to stay in Australia? Why won’t you inform us?

      Was it Abbott Abbott Abbott maybe?

      I think the green house of cards are starting to fall down. This is fast becoming a non issue with the Australian people.

    • Garry says:

      08:13am | 05/12/12

      He was staying put in case Gillard got the boot over the slush fund saga. PM Combet?

    • Rhino says:

      08:38am | 05/12/12

      Probably because Mr Abbott woulnd’t give Mr Combet a pair (i.e. maintain the balance of power in the house during question time)? Like he has done for more than a few other politicians, up to and including one missing the birth of his child.

    • WebbyMoto says:

      11:37am | 05/12/12

      That makes sense Rhino, until you realise that Mark Dreyfus is also an MP, so he would have been paired to be absent in the same way Combet could have been. So the question stands, why Dreyfus, the Parliamentary Secretary, rather than Combet the, you know, Minister?

    • Seano says:

      05:58am | 05/12/12

      “Mr Hunt and the Opposition will be keeping Labor’s price on carbon”

      Let’s hope so because Tony Abbott’s plan which has been rejected by economists aims to meet exactly the same Carbon reduction targets by giving our taxes to business in the hope they’ll reduce emissions. Yes that’s right give business our taxes, no wonder the opposition don’t want to talk about detail.

      Reply

    • Borderer says:

      08:33am | 05/12/12

      You mean like the current government IS giving our taxes to polluters?

      Your speculation on what the opposition “will” do versus what the government is actually doing…. yet you only condemn the opposition, amazing…

    • Seano says:

      10:34am | 05/12/12

      @borderer - Much like the coalition policies that you are clearly unfamiliar with your post makes little to no sense.

      Firstly there’s no speculation I’m talking about Abbott’s actual rejected by economists policy which he must implement if elected without fail. Abbott said it and to not implement this rubbish policy must see him branded a liar because that’s how we roll in Australia now thanks to Abbott. There can be no excuses and no changes of plan due to changes of circumstances.

      Secondly polluters are taxed for polluting, the money has to go some where so where better than to consumers for price rise compensation and into driving renewables. Econmists and even Abbott agreed that putting a price on carbon was the best way to reduce emissions. Well Abbott did before he decided the were political points to be scored in saying the opposite. Funny how Abbott’s circumstances changed (i.e. he wants to PM) and changing his stance on carbon pricing doesn’t make him a liar but when Gillard’s circumstances changed (i.e. she didn’t win the election) changing her stance does make her a liar….now that really is “amazing”.

    • WebbyMoto says:

      12:03pm | 05/12/12

      @Seano

      Quote: “Funny how Abbott’s circumstances changed (i.e. he wants to PM) and changing his stance on carbon pricing doesn’t make him a liar but when Gillard’s circumstances changed (i.e. she didn’t win the election) changing her stance does make her a liar….now that really is “amazing”.”

      Tell me you’re kidding? There is a mighty difference between changing your position in Opposition and going back on a stated election position in Government.

      Let me address individually. Mr Abbott is not a liar - despite how Labor paint him as the most powerful man in Australia, he is the Opposition Leader. His policies right now do not impact the Country. The Coalition showed it had no appetite for an ETS when they removed Turnbull, and a Carbon Tax is of the same ilk. The Coaltion took a No Carbon Tax policy to the last election, and they still have that policy. He may have made a flippant comment when an MP about a Tax being the cleanest solution five years ago, but, he wasn’t the leader of the Party then. The Leader’s responsibility is to lead the party, the combination of ideas that bring that Party together. The Leader must represent that Policy, perhaps personally they disagree, perhaps personally they have would prefer things differently, but they represent their party and that party’s policies.

      Ms Gillard isn’t a liar, not technically - but she made one significant mistake (amongst quite a few it must be said), she went against a stated policy decision. She said quite plainly “No Carbon Tax under a Government I lead”, but here we are now, we have a Carbon Tax. Does that make her a liar? Probably not, I’m sure when she said that she meant it. But the voting public should not, and I’m sure, will not, allow a Government to do that. You can not do a complete reversal on a stated policy position in an election campaign and then do a 180 on that in Government. If the voting masses were to not punish that misstep, it would create a dangerous precedent. It is actually down to what you’d allow your Government to get away with, 180’ing on an election campaign commitment with no better excuse than winning is not something the masses will forgive, and so they shouldn’t.

      And to me, that’s the core of this. Regardless of where you stand on the Carbon Tax, good or bad, justified or not, lie or compromise - the public’s problem with this Government is saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. To me, that’s what will cost them in the next election. Regardless of what else you achieve, you cannot shake off a blatant reversal of policy - people feel mislead and lied to, the stench of that offence will not fade, and the punishment for said offence is political oblivion for a few terms so that all parties learn that lesson.

    • Sirro says:

      12:17pm | 05/12/12

      Why the love for economists opinions Seano?  Just because an economist says something is good or bad means no more than anyone else’s opinion. Most are just looking at figures and trying to come up with an interpretation. Just have a look at how many actually get their forecasts in line with actual results for the economy. The answer is virtually none. Treasury economists are generally as poor as market ones on this but all they are effectively doing is putting a guess on something based on a set of assumed inputs. You can love their view and trust their forecasts if you wish but unfortunately you are destined to be wrong more often than not… Which sort of runs consistently with most of your posts I guess.

    • Borderer says:

      12:22pm | 05/12/12

      @Seano
      Prior to an election the LNP can change their intended policy, it’s what they take to the election and keeping that promise that matters. People will cry out if you take one policy to the election and in a matter of days go “What I’ve said, yeah, circumstances have changed… blah, blah, blah…” when clearly the only circumstance was the election, doing that makes people call you a liar, pretending otherwise is childish nonsense.

      Secondly polluters are taxed for polluting, the money has to go some where so where better than to consumers for price rise compensation and into driving renewables.

      So who is effectively paying the tax then? The consumer or the polluter? The tax is a poor idea because it hits a demand inelastic commodity, making it more expensive to the entire economy at a time when the economy is most fragile. There is little or no alternative to switch to in the short term and limited long term alternatives, particularly to the poor. It’s a bad policy implemented by idiots. When they started rabbiting about how everyone gets compensated I knew the BS was being shovelled thick and fast as they realised some of the extent of their stupidity would have and they needed to do something to cover the error.
      It’s bad locally, when you look at it globally it’s even dumber, hobbling the economy with a tax that nobody else is in a rush to do is the kind of stupidity that halts foriegn investment. When Swanny starts saying that Bernie Fraser (former head of the Reserve bank) doesn’t know what he’s talking about in regard to Australian fiscal policy you know the muppets in charge have stopped taking advice because they don’t like what they’re hearing.
      The CT, like the MRRT was rolled out with little or no oversight, a process that was dismantled by Rudd (started by Hawke and maintained in sucessive governments). It’s not like the policy is intrinsically bad unto itself, its just the way it’s contructed and implimented. Bad tax with worse timing.

    • Seano says:

      12:56pm | 05/12/12

      @WebbyMoto - “There is a mighty difference between changing your position in Opposition and going back on a stated election position in Government.”

      I stopped reading here mate. Gillard did not win government. Abbott offered exactly the same deal to the independents…funny how they didn’t trust him. If you cannot master those simple facts of history then you’re wasting my time.

      @ Sirro

      “Why the love for economists opinions Seano?”

      What you mean experts in their field? Yeah why listen to Economists or Scientists they tend to deal in too many facts for conservatives. The funny thing though it wasn’t just one economist who rejected the ridiculousness of Abbott’s carbon reduction plan it was pretty much of all of them…facts, evidence and consensus opinion shouldn’t be hard to swallow for those with the public good in mind rather than personal power.


      @Borderer - Yeah I get it, Abbott can say what he likes and then change it when he likes because he’s Abbott…Gillard doesn’t win the election, is forced to negotiate with the Greens and Independents to form government offers EXACTLY the same deal as Abbott (but no one trusts Abbott, based on experience) and Gillard is some how a liar. What a ridiculous double standard.

      Meanwhile you can rant all you like about whether the CO2 tax is effective but you entirely miss the point that both majors have a plan to meet the SAME targets and only one of those plans has been rejected by economists the one proposed by Abbott.

      You’re not getting rid of an ineffective instrument for curbing emissions by electing Abbott you’re getting a worse one.

      One, I think most voters will be shocked to learn will come directly from their back pocket rather than on the fairer user pays mechanism we have in place now.

    • WebbyMoto says:

      01:20pm | 05/12/12

      @Seano - you stopped reading huh? Good for you mate. I guess someone else’s opinion doesn’t matter when you’ve got your own wrapped up in a pretty little bow.

      And I’ve never heard anyone say that Tony Abbott offered the Greens a Carbon Tax to get their vote? That’s a new one, assuming you have some proof to back that up?  As for the other independents, we’re not taking into account the personal hatred that Tony Windsor has for the Coalition and Abbott, and the fact that Oakshott was always teaming up with Windsor? No, it’s all Mr Abbott’s fault. I can see past the simple facts, but I guess because my opinion differs from yours, I’m still wasting your time.

      The fact is that it was Labor who won Government (whether you want to argue the term or not), and they are the ones who backflipped on an election campaign commitment, not the Coalition - in fact it’s completely irrelevant what the Coalition’s policy has been thus far, what matters is the policy they take to the next election. That will be what they are judged and voted on - if they do a Labor andbackflip on that, then they will be entitled to exactly the same scorn.

      It’s a shame you decided not to read further, but perhaps I have more respect for opposite opinion than others.

    • Seano says:

      02:42pm | 05/12/12

      @WebbyMotto

      ” I guess someone else’s opinion doesn’t matter when you’ve got your own wrapped up in a pretty little bow.”

      Mate if you want to challenge my opinions that’s fine, I’m more than willing to listen and have them changed by better arguments. It’s happened before and it will happen again.

      The reason I stopped reading your post was because your whole initial premise was completely and utterly flawed. Life is too short to waste on those who’s opinions are tied to a reality they’ve altered in their own minds to suit they way the want to think.

      BTW - After your initial comment which I’ve quoted above I stopped reading….

    • Borderer says:

      02:50pm | 05/12/12

      @Seano
      Yeah I get it, Abbott can say what he likes and then change it when he likes because he’s Abbott

      No, I’d say you emphatically don’t get it. If you take a promise to an election and win, then you must carry it out. If you don’t win it would be reasonable that you change said policy in order to gain office in the future.

      Gillard doesn’t win the election, is forced to negotiate with the Greens and Independents to form government offers EXACTLY the same deal as Abbott (but no one trusts Abbott, based on experience) and Gillard is some how a liar. What a ridiculous double standard.

      Merely pointing out that Julia has done and said anything to win government, including reneging on promises is not an excuse. Prime example Mr Wilkie and the Pokie reforms. Even hinting that the Greens would have ever dealt with Abbott is ridiculous, the fact that the independants all jumped on board Gillard’s open cheque book speaks for their quality.

      One, I think most voters will be shocked to learn will come directly from their back pocket rather than on the fairer user pays mechanism we have in place now.

      Now brace yourself,  who currently is paying for the carbon tax out of their back pocket?? The voters, through higher prices on just about everything, the tax can’t continuously be passed on, the end user eventually pays and that is the Aussie consumer. It’s not a magic tax where a mysterious polluter pays and that’s the end of it, they pass on their costs and you pay, the truth they omitted from the multimillion dollar ad campaign.

    • Achmed says:

      02:53pm | 05/12/12

      You believed Abbott when he said there would be no new taxes under my Govt?  Then that lie was exposed when he released the plan to increase business tax by 2% to pay for maternity leave.
      You believed Abbott when he stated that the best way to put a price on carbon was with a tax?  That was until Labor did that and he HAD to oppose so he backflipped.
      You believe Abbott when he said “climate change is crap” right up until he saw thew opinion polls
      You believe Abbott when he staes he is threatened by homosexuality.  He refused to debate a fellow student at Uni because they were homosexual and not worth debating

    • TimB says:

      03:34pm | 05/12/12

      ‘@Seano - you stopped reading huh? Good for you mate. I guess someone else’s opinion doesn’t matter when you’ve got your own wrapped up in a pretty little bow.’

      Sorry Webby, it’s SOP for Seano. I’ve developed a drinking game around him.

      Take a drink any time Seano does either of the following.

      - Claims he stopped (or didn’t bother) reading your post.
      - Refers to your post as a ‘rant’.

      Take two sips if he does something he considers ‘clever’ with your screen name.

      Take three if he just stops all pretence at a constructive dialogue and just starts calling you a troll instead.

      Spend enough time disagreeing with Seano, and I guarantee you’ll end up with a perpetual hangover wink

    • Seano says:

      05:17pm | 05/12/12

      @trollb - I have no interest in the rant of trolls.

      @achmed - Exactly. Bordered is rambling about Gillard being willing to do or say anything to win government, and yet that’s exactly the the tactic that Abbott has adopted. The only difference is that Abbott knows he cannot keep his promises…which makes him a…you guessed it liar.

      @Borderer - You fail basic comprehension and history. Gillard did not win government. That’s the entire point!

      Abbott offered exactly the same deal to the independents and was rejected, no one trusts him.

    • TimB says:

      05:44pm | 05/12/12

      Wasn’t talking to you Seano. I don’t give a toss what you may or may not be not interested in.

      In the meantime…

      *Takes 6 drinks.

    • Seano says:

      06:54pm | 05/12/12

      @trollb - sorry I’m not interested in the rants of trolls.

    • Bris Jack says:

      06:43am | 05/12/12

      “Mr Hunt and the Opposition will be keeping Labor’s price on carbon”.

      Is labor putting together a circus act?

      The female snake oil salesman, Swann the illusionist, Dreyfus the mind reader and not forgetting the old rock star.

      Reply

    • james says:

      09:07am | 05/12/12

      Well Abbott took an price on carbon to 2007 election. Supported it under turnbulls leadership.

      He is a weathervane.

    • wm says:

      11:38am | 05/12/12

      abbott 2013: “I will raise your taxes, remove your benefits and I promise that all prices will massively drop, so much so that Whyalla will re-emerge from the depths of hell and once again thrive…”

      the guy is doomed, I think Mr Hunt, without his shackles, will make a fine opposition leader in 2014.

    • Super D says:

      06:43am | 05/12/12

      While in Doha did you at least get to check out the air conditioned football stadiums the Qataris are building for the world cup?

      Reply

    • Brenda says:

      06:54am | 05/12/12

      Gillard, Rudd, Carr are notable for their over-use of sky polluting air travel.  Their friends the extreme Greens are also partial to air travel, and of course the occasional helicopter fly-over, just checking for pollution.

      The first thing you can do to help us with electricity prices is to drop the (lied about) carbon tax.  Without that tax and associated green fees, our power bill would be 16% cheaper.

      You talk about falsehoods Mr Dreyfus.

      There have been no worse falsehoods perpetrated on the Australian people than those highly questionable activities by your Labor union cronies and the busy little trio that engaged in unseemly behaviour during the 1990’s when our Dear Leader was employed by a law firm.

      You might think this has nothing to do with your warming distraction but it has EVERYTHING to do with it. 

      You see, it’s about credibility Mr Dreyfus.  We don’t believe a word that any of you say. We don’t believe Miss Gillard because of her habitual lies and refusal to answer questions where those answers count. We don’t believe Mr Swan.  We don’t believe any unionist MP, including Messrs Shorten and climate Minister Combet.

      Their lifetime connections to thieving unions have rendered their credibility null and void.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      06:55am | 05/12/12

      @Craig2
      ’ do you really believe china and India will stifle their economic growth to satisfy your policy outcomes’

      Perhaps if Australia is addressing its pollution issues, ISO14000 can be written into our free trade agreements with China and India, as is ISO9000,  and we will be operating on a ‘level playing field’  instead of competing against GRUBS who exploit to the maximum ?
      ’

      Reply

    • ramases says:

      06:56am | 05/12/12

      Your sentence or part sentence says it all ‘I have represented Australia at many of this year’s international climate change negotiations” so you have a vested interest in pushing the Climate Change barrow for all its worth. Lets have a little look at the doom and gloom scenarios that we have been subjected to. Temperatures to rise higher than ever but still we have temperatures from the 1900’s that still beat what we are having today, maybe we could blame the sailing ships for stopping the wind from cooling us down, makes as much sense as some of the tripe that has been published, ocean’s to rise and flood the low lying cities and towns when in reality the oceans have risen a mere 11mm in 20 years, not really life threatening but enough to send those who believe in all the crap to go into fits of depression and declare the world is ending.
        Now lets look at a price on Carbon. Australia has gone down that path after being promised that it wouldn’t but most developed countries and the biggest polluters have said no to a price on Carbon but at least Australia Government can boast that it is destroying the country to appease those who really hold the power and screw the public again for no gain whatsoever.
      Dream on Sonny Jim and keep taking those all expenses paid trips on the public purse as soon we will have a new Government and you will hopefully go with the old one into oblivion.

      Reply

    • andye says:

      09:24am | 05/12/12

      ramases: ” so you have a vested interest in pushing the Climate Change barrow for all its worth.”

      Apparently this motivation is clear to you, but the motivation of business and the denier pundits is not?

    • PsychoHyena says:

      09:47am | 05/12/12

      @ramases, and what if someone attended those negotiations with the intent of preventing the climate change barrow? Or should they be excluded from those negotiations? Get a clue.

    • Steve of QBN says:

      10:39am | 05/12/12

      @andye, 

      “... but the motivation of business and the denier pundits is not?”  You mean businesses like GE which has a huge vested interest in wind turbines?  But then they support the warmist agenda so I guess that’s ok then.

    • fml says:

      01:26pm | 05/12/12

      “emperatures to rise higher than ever but still we have temperatures from the 1900’s that still beat what we are having today”

      Really? NASA says otherwise? Or are you talking about Feb29th 1906 when it was really, really, really hot outside?

      http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/388674main_portal2Huge.jpg

      “11mm in 20 years,” but 6 inches in the last 100 years.

      “Australia has gone down that path after being promised that it wouldn’t”

      Not true, Gillard said she would put a price on carbon. I don’t mind that you are argue against climate change but you should atleast quote the correct figures.

    • ramases says:

      04:29pm | 05/12/12

      FML, read
      news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-says-no-carbon-tax-under-her-govt-20100816-126ru.html. She said it and not once but repeated it several times and then used the Greens as away of breaking that promise. She lied and we all know it but those with rose or red coloured glasses cant see the forest for the Greens .
      Andye, crystal clear to tell the truth, I don’t like being lied to and I don’t like half truths and maybes put forward as evidence that effect the cost of living of millions of Australians.
        Psycho Hyena, if someone was attending with that in mind it would be fairly obvious to all but the feeble minded that it was either a self funded trip of funded by those who think the whole premise is not only crap but corrupted.

    • lostinperth says:

      08:24am | 05/12/12

      ” It’s right up there with Mr Abbott’s plan to carpet all of Australia’s productive farmland with trees “

      And you have the nerve to complain the Coalition has a “notable absence of truth”.

      The hypocrisy of the ALP is breathtaking.

      Reply

    • andye says:

      02:16pm | 05/12/12

      @lostinperth - So where exactly was Tony planning on planting all those trees?

    • Joan Bennett says:

      08:32am | 05/12/12

      Mark Dreyfus and other AGW believers, if it really was about “human emissions”, why do none of you ever mention population?
      And if it the evidence was in, why did the IPCC falsify their data with that hockey stick nonsense?
      Sorry if the sceptics critical thinking gets in the way of your “beliefs”.

      Reply

    • andye says:

      02:24pm | 05/12/12

      @Joan Bennet: “why did the IPCC falsify their data with that hockey stick nonsense?”

      Its funny, there are various versions of graphs that attempt to reconstruct the temperatures across a longer timeframe and while they vary there is definitely a hockey stick shape there. Even when there was adjustments, the essential shape was that of a hockey stick, with the temperature since the 50s increasing much faster than other changes in the longer term.

      It is another thing like “hide the decline” that is just trotted out as if it were an argument.

    • Gregg says:

      08:45am | 05/12/12

      It’s great to see an accurate sprinkling of facts and figures and get something like
      ” Now, in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact. That will take a lot of carbon out of the atmosphere.  We doubled the production of clean energy, which promises to reduce the utilization of fossil fuels for power generation. “
      Politicians are known to make promises that never ever get fulfilled and even to lie!
      Mark, you may have driven a vehicle at times and who knows, perhaps even had to put fuel in and if so I expect you would have some idea of fuel consumption.
      That being so, do you really believe that a statement about doubling fuel efficiency standards is meaningful as to fuel consumption? or is just more blurb re emissions and could be relatively meaningless if it is states that set their own standards.

      You can work away all you like but if you think you’ll be getting anything meaningful out of the Indians or Chinese, you’re some sucker!
      And then what will the western developed nations, Australia included have to say to the FACT - ” our undeveloped nations consume far less energy and make far less emissions per capita than your countries and we do not feel we should be any more restricted to developing than your countries have been “
      ” If you want us to have as a good a life as your people and yet make less emissions, you the developed nations have the technology and the wealth to supply us with technologically smart and renewable power that could see this happen and it would offer a great way of seeing benefits “
      Can we agree where to start and have the wealthy nations establish a hundred trillion $$$$ fund to commence the project?

      Reply

    • NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

      08:51am | 05/12/12

      Hi Mark,

      No offence but all those high level talks about climate change happen to be just plain old talking for the time being and it has been for a while now! We can change all the locations from Kyoto to Copenhagen or from Cancun to Doha however the stories still remain hopelessly similar, meaning most of the biggest polluters are only wanting to be part of the problem and not part of the solutions. 

      Because it might actually hurt the big business and heavy industry as well as how we do things on a global scale in such places as China, India, Russia and the USA.  Nobody so far is showing any sense of accountability or responsibility towards fixing climate change issues and most interestingly some are very ambivalent to certain facts mainly because it might cost them precious time and money.  So can we call all those climate change conferences in very nice spots around the world, a total waste of time and money for the time being? 

      Better still we should invest in having weekly 5 minute promos on ABC network informing the public about the down sides of climate change with a couple of good scientists at hand? With no expectations at all wait for the responses of the general public?  Because most certainly all those high level talks haven’t managed to establish anything new or positive so far.  Kind regards.

      Reply

    • ronny jonny says:

      09:02am | 05/12/12

      “the world has left the Coalition behind”, and jetted off to Doha to get their snouts in the trough.
      I suppose really we don’t need to send the minister or the PM because they have already solved climate change. We just have to sit back now and watch the rest of the world follow our example. No problem, put your feet up Greg Combet.

      Reply

    • HereComesDaJudge says:

      09:57am | 05/12/12

      Most readers who follow Mark Dreyfus know he is regrettably so Labor orientated that he will pretty well say anything to beat their drums!

      Whether the statements are true or not mean little to him and in the climate warming debate he once again displays his enthusiasm for canning the Opposition - sometimes correctly - but in this instance he has no knowledge of the subject whatsoever and like Lemmings over the cliff, he follows the crowd!

      The entire issue of Australia vs climate warning is swamped by the fact that China is producing TWO (2) MILLION TONNES of carbon dioxide EVERY SECOND! That’s a lot!

      So whilst the Aussie economy is steadily being destroyed by this sad Government, any effort to contribute to climate control is literally being swamped by the Chinese (and the USA, UK and Germany) outputs of the “bad stuff” is simply a drop in the ocean.

      Not saying we shouldn’t make an effort but with Labors bumbling over the issue, canning the Opposition is totally pointless!

      Reply

    • Sweet prince of darkness says:

      10:02am | 05/12/12

      Won’t somebody think of the children ......

      Reply

    • Alex says:

      11:10am | 05/12/12

      As more evidence comes to light, that the world is just going through normal climate cycle, the more we see how we the public have been part of a fear campaign to impose unecessary taxes.
      The worst of them all at the moment is Labors carbon tax, which does nothing for the climate, or environmnent, does not push fund into R&D, but just moves money around from the people getting taxed, to people getting compinsted. And maybe some money for the government to support all the new agencies they setup to monitor this. It is one of the biggest scams to hit us so for, and I am still amazed how some of the die hard Labor supporters still support a tax, that doesn’t achieve any of the things Gillard said it would. Labor is taking a lot out of American and UK politics, on how to turn a turd into gold with words, and how to get people to buy into this with lies and smear campaigns against the other bloke.

      Reply

    • Alex says:

      11:19am | 05/12/12

      Oh, Alex, you are not what you seem, are you?

    • fml says:

      01:29pm | 05/12/12

      “As more evidence comes to light, that the world is just going through normal climate cycle,”

      Where exactly is that evidence?

      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      NASA says atmospheric C02 levels in the last 50 years are the highest they have been for the last 650,000. Doesn’t look cyclical.

    • Alex says:

      03:52pm | 05/12/12

      CO2 levels have always fluctuated, not all CO2 is man made… An example… At one point with much higher volcanic activity there were greater CO2 levels. Now with a lull in activity there is less naturally created CO2. So what next, have a volcano tax? Come on!

      In any case, putting a tax on CO2, is not going to solve your problem. So still don’t understand why all the support for a wealth distribuion fund. To add to this we are not part of the EU but part of APAC/APJ, and with China, India Indonesia etc pushing forward with industrial growth and the cheaper the better, hitting us with a tax isn’t solving anything. Destroying the Australian economy by slugging mining companies with taxes is also not going to benefit anyone here. We are already seeing massive job losses in industrial sectors

      In the US Obama did try to go forward with a carbon pricing scheme, but he put it forward to the people first, and the people said NO. He stopped. Gillard didn’t listen and went forward to keep her hold on power. There is really no defence for this. And all these ministers can keep holding summits, and flying at our expense to discuss evidence from one group, ignore evidence from another. Creating CO2 by flying, catching limo’s and enjoying themselves all in the name of one sided science and “good cause”.

      P.S. I am the original Alex wink

    • Burp! says:

      11:15am | 05/12/12

      Skype would have saved money and helped reduce emissions - but eh who needs to use technology when you have money invested in R&D, er still in the trough!

      Reply

    • Dann Da Mann says:

      11:16am | 05/12/12

      Mark,The sooner you lot are out of office the better off Australia will be.
      You are a Politician which is a person who cares ONLY about Themselves and the next Election Whereas a Statesman Cares about the People and Country and that applies to you and your unbelieveable Ms gillard.

      Reply

    • Ripa says:

      11:23am | 05/12/12

      Hey Mark,
      How about a list of what you have done to develop or invent new clean energy, where have you invested our money.?

      You try to portray an image that the world is moving away from coal power, when the facts show you to be nothing but a bullsh*t artist.

      http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.html

      US coal export to china is predicted to double.

      Reply

    • Carl Palmer says:

      11:33am | 05/12/12

      “....if their moment arrives, Mr Hunt and the Opposition will be keeping Labor’s price on carbon.”

      Firstly, you know the “moment” will arrive, secondly the tax will be repealed and finally it is the economy stupid. It also shows how interested your boss is with Doha.

      Reply

    • JoniM says:

      12:29pm | 05/12/12

      Based on the Mission Australia survey results today, even our young people have finally realised they need a job and a good economy rather than satisying an ideology of “feel good” environmentalism and deceptive and charlatan politics.
      As such the only ones now being “left behind” are the ALP !
      Even old ALP icon Faulkner has realised that !

    • Cat says:

      01:31pm | 05/12/12

      I would be much more impressed with all the “climate change” talk if those who could take action were taking action that would actually do something about the issue. There is something that could be done. It could be done fairly easily.
      It would provide employment. A little further down the track it would also supply shelter, fuel, clothing and food for the planet. Many landslides might be prevented. The temperature would drop (especially at night). Moisture would be retained in the places it is most needed.
      Yes, we need to plant several billion trees - and yes, it really IS an answer to many problems.  Despite that it barely rates a mention at the sort of talk-fests set up by governments and the likes of Tim Flannery.
      Why? Because they know that doing something like that would take the heat out of the debate. The problem would diminish. There might - heaven forbid - be some international cooperation.
      The reality is that all these climate change people do not want to see the problem solved. The answer is too obvious. The billions of dollars being spent on modelling and “research” and trying to frighten people with talk of “warming” and “rising sea levels” would simply vanish.
      Well, if that money was re-directed into planting trees and maintaining them the problem would be reduced to a manageable level within a decade. It IS as simple as that. All it would take is someone with enough clout to lead the campaign - and the willingness to make the enemies among the “climate change experts”.
      Come on you lot - you have plenty to say - argue against the idea.

      Reply

    • Lee says:

      01:57pm | 05/12/12

      From “The Australian”

      Face the coal facts

      BLAME Australia for assisting China to dramatically warm the planet: like a serial abuser hiding behind very public charitable work, Australia praises itself over its price on carbon while supplying as much brown coal as it can dig to fuel China’s industry.

      Yet, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has already answered the question by promising the carbon tax would not impact on Australia’s coal industry.

      Reply

    • Geko says:

      02:46pm | 05/12/12

      The “crisis” exists only in GIGO computer models and the fevered imaginations of the gullible, not to mention our leftist friends with their hidden agenda to destroy western democracy!

      Global warming lasted only about 16 years from 1980 to 1996.
      Since then warming has plateaued for 16 years despite “SOARING” trace gas plant food CO2 levels.

      What does that tell you about climate sensitivity?

      We have very short memories, otherwise we would remember how the CIA was duped into panicking about global cooling in th 1970’s.

      The CIA’s “Global Cooling” Files
      “A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”
      written by the CIA for ‘internal planning purposes’ in August 1974

      The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of GLOBAL COOLING, NOT WARMING.

      And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists.

      This might be the most important lesson of the 1974 report on global cooling:
      that we need to grow up, separate climatology from fear, and recognise — much as it pains politicians and scientists — that our understanding of how climate changes remains in its infancy.

      http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/5592803/the-cias-global-cooling-files.thtml


      http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

      Note also how they attributed exactly the same weather disasters to global cooling which our current crop of apocalyptic warmist friends now attribute to mythical manmade warming!

      Reply

    • expat says:

      02:50pm | 05/12/12

      Legally binding.. Hahaha International law is a joke at the best of times. Who is going to police it?

      If you think countries like India care about the environment and reducing emissions then you are kidding yourselves. India unlike China has no population controls, lets see how that goes as more and more of them desire electricity?

      Reply

    • Fed Up says:

      03:28pm | 05/12/12

      Hello its climate change….it would happen regardless of human inhabitance.
      Sure man contributes but to have have a substantial effect on man made climate change you would have to immediatley shut everything down….not going to happen.
      The big polluters aren’t on board…dirty energy is cheaper than clean.
      So why screw low/fixed income earners more with a carbon tax.

      Reply

    • Ray says:

      03:53pm | 05/12/12

      The level of Labor spin is such that the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change implies that his Government speaks the truth and nothing but the truth on the subject.

      Who can forget the PM’s election promise that there would be no carbon tax? Who can remember the PM and colleagues calling carbon dioxide pollution, when it is in fact a colourless, odourless gas which is essential for life? Who can remember their alarmist propaganda that the Government had to act so as to stop global warming reaching a “tipping point” and the Great Barrier Reef being destroyed? Why did they not admit that only 3% of atmospheric CO2 is attributable to human activity?
      Yet the Government and its army of scientific advisers have not produced one iota of scientific evidence that man-made CO2 emissions have caused global warming. Despite such emissions increasing steadily, there has been no measurable global warming for the past 14 years.

      Thanks to the massive rise in electricity prices in the past 5 years,  people are coming to realise that they have been the victim of Government policy that cannot be justified on either science or economics grounds, and policy that will have no effect on climate change, which in any case is a natural process .

      Reply

    • Kipling says:

      05:15pm | 05/12/12

      Considering this “I have represented Australia at many of this year’s international climate change negotiations, so attending Doha on behalf of the Climate Change Minister is fairly logical and not so remarkable.” was pretty much in the opening few sentences of the article I just have to ask, did you only read the title before asking your question Lisa?

      Whilst you might not like or agree with the answer, it is actually there for you in print…

      Reply

    • James O says:

      06:27pm | 05/12/12

      If climate change and all its future consequences are to be taken seriously then every consumer will have to change their habits of a lifetime,that means cutting back on every energy consuming product and commodity.
      You can make up your own list but don’t leave out your favourite pastime and that also includes sending comments to The Punch. Ridiculous, no not really, you have to be serious about this,after all to save the planet everyone has got to give up technology and regress a little, we have to become accustomed to a simpler less sophisticated communal lifestyle of self subsistance with less travel and making less to no money. Populations will need to be reduced because food production will have to be quantified to regional requirements because of the lack of efficient machinery. Travelling will not be a regular option as regional communities will be living under a fuedal system run by the local ruling authorities and transport will be highly regulated to essential use only, powered only by biodegradable products like horses.Travelling 100 ks will seem like travelling overseas because aircraft will be a just a fading memory. Health will depend on natural therapeutic remedies and natural attrition to strengthen the gene pool for future generations to survive as pharmaceuticals will be limited and locally sourced from specialised suppliers.We will all be semi-educated and semi-ignorant isolated from the rest of the world,whatever that may be, because that world wll be a totally different place,not climatically devastated but sociologically damaged because trying to save the planet isn’t going to be conformed to by everyone in every creed, culture and nation, but thats another story.  Meanwhile back to the politics.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 19 May 13 02:24PM

RT @HeatherSmithAU: Can living in another country change your life for the better? by @lucyjk on @newscomau f. moi http://t.co/E5Ma3kBut2

David Penberthy

penbo 19 May 13 01:02PM

@mooks83 sophisticated response. Think the kids parents saw it differently

David Penberthy

penbo 19 May 13 12:50PM

More class from 9's footy show, lampooning a baby that allegedly looks like Sterlo with a pic swiped from Facebook http://t.co/BGoYP6Pn68

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 19 May 13 12:32PM

A story that's close to my heart - can living overseas change your life for the better? With thanks, @Alisa_reduxhttp://t.co/n6tksJstqs

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter