Labor's shameful hypocrisy over Greens


Bunch of nut-jobs

The slow and painful disintegration of the Labor/Green alliance is a joy to watch – Labor’s chickens are all coming home to roost.

But at the same time it reveals the astonishing hypocrisy at the very heart of the ALP.

Back in 2010, Labor were only too happy to welcome the Greens into their fold, with friendly handshakes and smiles all round and Bob ‘n’ Julia signing their marriage pact before the assembled press.

Only later did we find out that a condition of the Greens’ support was “taking urgent action on climate”. So Julia, abandoning a pre-election promise not to introduce a carbon tax, announced that she would be doing precisely that.

Why did Labor MPs not protest back then at that cowardly surrender of principle? There was just a stony silence, because they had agreed to sell out their principles (such that they were) to stay in power at any cost (and what a cost it will turn out to be).

But now, barely a week after the introduction of the carbon tax, Labor has apparently and suddenly rediscovered those principles that it so hastily rejected in 2010, and is now desperately trying to distance itself from the extreme-Left party of environmental headbangers with which it chose to share a bed. It’s nothing short of pathetic.

And the most pathetic figure in all of this is Greg Combet, climate change minister, who, despite having relied on the Greens to get his disastrous carbon tax through Parliament, now lines up to criticise the Greens with the rest of his Labor mates – breathtaking.

SENIOR Labor Left figures have backed calls for the party to take a tougher line against the Greens as members of all factions lashed the minor party for its stance on offshore processing and contempt for blue-collar workers.

As the NSW Nationals yesterday revealed they expected to preference the Greens last at the next election, Labor Left faction convenor Stephen Jones said he expected that NSW general secretary Sam Dastyari’s motion to take a tough line on Greens preferences would pass the state conference.

“When the asylum-seeker legislation was in the Senate, the Greens had the choice between being a protest movement or a parliamentary party,” Mr Jones said. “They chose to continue to be a protest movement.”

Senior left-aligned minister, Greg Combet, distanced the government from the Greens, declaring Labor did not share the same values.

“We (Labor) have different values and different policies, and we certainly distinguish from them (Greens),” the Climate Change Minister said. (source)

Double standards, Greg. You only have different values and policies when it suits you. When you need the Greens, those policies and values are abandoned in an instant. Because you have no principles other than staying in power. Shameful.

Canberra's coldest mornings since 1965


A light dusting of global warming there…

From the Weather Isn’t Climate department. Cue Tim Flannery, Will Steffen or David Karoly saying that this is “consistent with global warming” in 3, 2, 1…

Canberra has shivered through its eighth straight freezing, frosty morning, the coldest stretch of winter mornings in 47 years.

The mercury dropped to a chilly minus 4.8 degrees at 6.51am this morning, topping off eight consecutive mornings below minus 2.3 degrees.

The eight-day cold spell, with an average minimum temperature of minus 4.9, is the coldest string of July mornings since 1965. The all-time record was in July 1962, when the average temperature over an eight-day period was minus 7.

Canberrans felt the worst of the cold on Wednesday, when temperatures fell to minus 6.1 degrees, 6 degrees colder than the long-term July average of minus 0.1.

Wednesday’s low is still far from the record July minimum of minus 10 degrees, recorded in 1971, but is just shy of the lowest temperature recorded this year, which was minus 6.3 degrees on June 20. (source)

'Even the dead don't escape the carbon tax'


A situation that is no doubt being played out all around our country, and will be until this pointless tax is repealed.

Fraudulent price rises attributed to the carbon tax will become commonplace, and every time it happens, it will forcefully remind people just whose fault it all is, and how she lied about it before the election:

A Melbourne family who claim they were slugged an extra $55 “carbon tax charge” when burying a relative were told “even the dead don’t escape the carbon tax”.

Erica Maliki and her family were burying her father-in-law at Springvale Cemetery when she was told the price per burial plot had increased because of the carbon tax.

Her father-in-law died on June 30, the day before the carbon tax was introduced, and was buried early last week.

“I thought to myself, ‘What carbon could possibly be used by putting a man in a grave?'” Ms Maliki said.

“All they did was put the dirt back in. How can they charge us a carbon tax for burying someone?”

Ms Maliki’s son Zaid said the cemetery’s receptionist told his sister-in-law “even the dead don’t escape the carbon tax”.

“We are pretty upset… that comment was a kick in the guts,” he said. (source)

In any event, technically, burial is carbon sequestration. If it had been a cremation, however…

Tweet of the Day: ABC's Dr Karl 'loves the carbon tax'


“Dr Karl” is a regular fixture of the ABC’s pop science output (see here), and therefore, almost inevitably, like all his colleagues at Auntie, a climate alarmist.

In response to a tweet about the carbon tax yesterday, Dr Karl replied:

Apart from not addressing the question, Dr Karl actually loves the carbon tax! What a surprise from an ABC science journo! A pointless political gesture which will damage our prosperity at a time when the global economy is spiralling into GFC Mark II – and Dr Karl “loves” it.

Obviously, he fails to spare a thought for the millions of ordinary Australians whose finances will be stretched even closer to breaking point by a policy which serves no purpose apart from keeping Gillard in power by appeasing the Greens.

I replied, naturally, enquiring what effect the carbon tax would have on the climate. I have yet to receive a reply. Quelle surprise

Labor rushes to dump Greens, but it's all too late


Bunch of nut-jobs

Evidence emerges that Labor is beginning to realise its huge mistake in ever forming a government with a bunch of extremist ecotards, otherwise known as the Green party.

Are they perhaps starting to twig that they aren’t a bunch of harmless tree-huggers, but are in fact a fanatical group of fundamentalist, anti-human Marxists?

Yesterday, the “faceless men” of Labor suggest preferencing the Greens last at the next federal election, and today union leader Paul Howes exposes them for what they are – a party of dangerous extremists who have no place in a democratic Australia.

But it’s too late – Labor has sacrificed itself on the extreme environmental altar and implemented a pointless carbon tax which was a condition of support from the Greens. Core Labor voters won’t forget the betrayal, and the party will be punished without mercy at the next election.

LABOR should consider preferencing the Greens last at the federal election, the party’s NSW secretary Sam Dastyari says in a declaration of war on Julia Gillard’s alliance partner made without consulting the Prime Minister.

Mr Dastyari, who described the Greens as “extremists not unlike One Nation”, said Labor must “stop treating them like they are part of our family … Where it is in the Labor Party’s interest to do so, we should consider placing (the Greens) last – just like we did with One Nation,” he said. 

The state secretary will move a motion at next weekend’s NSW party conference calling on Labor to “no longer provide the Greens party automatic preferential treatment in any future preference negotiations”, and hopes other state branches will follow suit.

The motion also declares that “extreme elements” of the Greens’ social and economic agenda “are at odds with the values and needs of many Labor voters”. (source)

And Paul Howes of the AWU finally (finally!) works it out as well:

If the Greens had their way, I doubt NSW would ever win the State of Origin.

There probably wouldn’t even be a State of Origin – we’d just sit around with Queenslanders and play pass the parcel. After all, the Greens in NSW have a policy of promoting “non-competitive sports” such as yoga, dance, trampolining and tai chi over the traditional sports that Australian children enjoy playing.

As their policy explains, the Greens “believe too much emphasis is placed on full body contact sports often causing unnecessary physical damage and confining opportunities for participation to the athletic elite.”

Sorry kids – no more rugby, no more Aussie rules, no more hockey or netball. Let’s all go meditate instead.

I’m not sure if the Greens who wrote this ridiculous policy have kids, or ever were children themselves, but expecting children not be competitive is just bizarre.

Children will find a way to turn just about anything into a competition – and that doesn’t have to be a bad thing.

In the blissful Green world-view, competition is bad, therefore winning is bad. No one can stand out, so we should all be brought down to the lowest common denominator.

They have got away with their grab-bag of loopy and out-there policies for years. They’ve got away with it by being passed off as a group of eccentric but basically harmless hippies.

People assumed that the Greens might have some weird ideas, but they are never going to run the show, so we don’t need to worry about them.

Well, we can no longer afford to be so complacent. (source)

Read it all.

Craig Emerson dances on the grave of the Australian economy


Singing a requiem for Labor

If you haven’t seen this video, please be prepared with a sick bag – and don’t have any sharp objects around with which you may wish to inflict harm on your computer.

Craig Emerson comes to an interview with the ABC prepared with a pre-recorded soundtrack to participate in one of the most embarrassing interviews I have ever seen –  not just from this Labor rabble, but in my life.

On the day after the pointless and damaging carbon tax was introduced, and Gillard suggested those who questioned it were simply foolish, we have this:

Words. Fail. Me.

All I can struggle to manage is, keep it up, Craigie boy. You have just torpedoed another massive hole in your sinking government.

Gilliard: only foolish people oppose carbon tax


Of course the headline of Gillard’s patronising and delusional article in The Australian doesn’t say that, it says:

Sensible Australians will see carbon tax as a change for the better.”

Which is the same as saying only foolish people will question its merits. And she asks a very dangerous question:

“So now, Australians have a chance to see carbon pricing in action for themselves. Is it a wrecking ball, a python squeeze or is it a sensible policy to cut pollution? You decide.”

Oh, don’t you worry – we will, Julia. We will.

Read it here.

Last few days before Australian climate madness takes effect


The Australian economy…

On Sunday 1 July 2012, the Labor/Green government’s carbon tax of $23 per tonne will finally take effect in Australia.

We’ve heard all the usual spin from Greg Combet about how other countries are taking similar action and Australia must “catch up”. It’s all bullshit as anyone with half a brain could work out. Unfortunately, Combet and Gillard and their Green mates don’t have half a brain between them, so they can’t work it out. In any case, it’s all Green blackmail anyway, to keep Gillard in power.

Coming at a time when:

  • the European economy could collapse at any moment thanks to any number of bankrupt states teetering on the brink of default,
  • economic confidence in the US is low, and
  • our own resources-run economy is feeling the pinch from decreased demand from China (even ignoring the punishing mining tax),

to legislate what is essentially the world’s highest carbon tax, when European carbon prices have been falling like a stone, and now stand around $10, is pure climate madness – and what originally gave this blog its name back in 2008.

And of course, it will do NOTHING for the climate. Our emissions will actually rise. And China and India’s emissions will rise several orders of magnitude more than any notional reduction here in Australia for decades to come.

Gillard believes that when the tax comes into effect, people won’t notice and she can crow “See, it wasn’t so bad after all!” Some hope. Electricity prices are already set to rise 18 – 20% next year and the additional costs of paying the tax will inevitably be passed on to consumers (or suppliers, who will eventually pass it on to consumers anyway). Prices of virtually everything will rise despite the almost childishly simplistic refrain of “it’s only the top 500 polluters who pay”. Yes, and who pays them?

The cost of living here in Australia is going through the roof and the economy is already stagnant. Uncertainty about a second GFC is forcing Australian families all over the country to tighten their belts, slash discretionary spending and sit tight in their bunkers until the next election, which they hope will deliver a majority government capable of action.

Thanks to the carbon tax, the next 15 months will be even worse than that. I foresee the economy shrinking, retailers going under, businesses failing and unemployment rising. The housing market will shrink and families will be stuck in the negative equity trap. There can be no other outcome.

The so-called “green economy” is a myth. It survives on a life support system of generous government handouts. Withdraw the feeding tube and death rapidly follows. Only when such alternative energies become genuinely competitive will they be able to survive without government crutches. It is not the panacea that will see us through this crisis.

We can only hope that something forces an early election and this pointless and damaging tax can be removed as soon as possible thereafter. Otherwise, we’re stuck with it until at least the second half of 2013, by which time, the Australian economy may be too broken to be saved – and it may take generations of hard times foisted upon our, quote, “children and grandchildren” to restore it.

Harold Ambler: 'Don't sell your coat'


Great read

It’s a while now since I finished reading this great little book on the global warming scare, and other non-climate demands have subsequently prevented me from reading it again, so unfortunately this is more of a recommendation than a full review.

However, if you want a clear, very readable and straightforward exposé of the alarmism of climate science and the media, the myth of the green economy, the ostracising of dissenters and the myriad other distorted facets to this key issue for the 21st century, ‘Don’t sell your coat’ ticks all the boxes. It’s available on Kindle as well, for just US$9, so you can start reading it today.

Highly recommended.

Harold also blogs at Talking About the Weather here – one for your bookmarks.

‘Don’t sell your coat’ is available from Amazon here.

Rio+20 Earth Summit fizzles in the rain


Epic fail

UPDATE 2: Christopher Booker writes in The Telegraph:

The great global warming scare has long been dying on its feet, but that sad fiasco of a conference in Rio last week saw it finally dead and buried. “It’s pathetic, it’s appalling,” wailed a spokesman for WWF, one of the thousands of green activists who flew to Rio, many at taxpayers’ expense, to see the last rites read over their lost dream. Their cause has even been abandoned by one of its most outspoken champions, the green guru James Lovelock of “Gaia” fame, who now admits that the warming scare was all a tragic mistake, and that talk of “sustainable development” is just “meaningless drivel”.

UPDATE: George Monbiot describes the draft UN text as “283 paragraphs of fluff” and quotes one of them as follows in the Guardian:

“This paragraph from the declaration sums up the problem for me:

We recognise that the planet Earth and its ecosystems are our home and that Mother Earth is a common expression in a number of countries and regions and we note that some countries recognise the rights of nature in the context of the promotion of sustainable development. We are convinced that in order to achieve a just balance among the economic, social and environment needs of present and future generations, it is necessary to promote harmony with nature.”

It sounds lovely, doesn’t it? It could be illustrated with rainbows and psychedelic unicorns and stuck on the door of your toilet. But without any proposed means of implementation, it might just as well be deployed for a different function in the same room.” (source)

Another pointless gab fest out of the way, and we can be glad that no progress was made towards the UN’s goal of global economic shutdown. The UK Telegraph‘s warmist Geoffrey Lean is not happy:

Even the skies wept. Glorious weather bathed Rio de Janeiro for the week running up to the Earth Summit, while some hope remained that it might produce even minor measures to tackle the world’s escalating environmental crises. But when the leaders flew in on Wednesday to rubber-stamp an agreement shorn of commitments to action, the rain started falling – and didn’t let up, culminating in a thunderstorm on the final morning.

It is always a bad sign when a UN conference ends on time: if anything substantive is at stake, these unwieldy gatherings of 190 governments invariably overrun, only reaching resolution in the early hours of the morning. So it says much about the inconsequentiality of the agreement in Rio that it was finalised even before the meeting began.

Brazil, as host country, was desperate to avoid a repeat of the Copenhagen climate summit, where the leaders found little agreed when they arrived and had to try to do the job themselves. Confronted with the failure of two years of negotiations to agree even an anodyne and non‑binding accord, Brazil watered it down even further and rammed it through: the 100 or so presidents and prime ministers were effectively confined to self-congratulatory speeches and public relations photo-calls.

But the effect was a greater failure. For at least in the Danish capital the leaders tried – and almost succeeded – to get agreement on ambitious measures. In Rio nothing was even attempted, despite the increasing urgency of action needed to combat overfishing, pollution of the seas, loss of soils, climate change and a host of other growing crises. (source)