Coalition’s ‘direct action’ policy almost as pointless as carbon tax


Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

I was reprimanded by a commenter yesterday for being ‘inconsistent’ and apparently ‘more interested in insulting those on the other side of politics’, as a result of not having sufficiently criticised the Coalition’s direct action policy.

Well, there are a number of reasons why posting has been light over the past few months, including a variety of other commitments which have meant the blog has been lower down the list of priorities, but I am very happy to go on the record to state that the Coalition’s direct action policy on climate is almost as pointless as Labor’s ETS or carbon tax. [Read more...]

Coalition will force double dissolution on carbon tax


Greg Hunt

As we would expect, the Coalition will not allow the undemocratic “poison pill” tactics of Labor to stand in the way of its right to repeal the carbon tax legislation if (when) in government:

THE Coalition will go to a double dissolution election if it wins government and Labor baulks at repealing the carbon tax and its associated compensation, opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt says.

But Mr Hunt has declared he expects Labor to eventually support the Coalition’s push to unravel the Gillard government’s climate change policy, if it loses the next federal poll.

Speaking on Sky News’s Australian Agenda yesterday, Mr Hunt said doing otherwise would be “an act of almost breathtaking democratic arrogance”. Indicating the opposition had been busy behind the scenes building its election policy platform, Mr Hunt said he had been up till 5am one night last week trawling through previous years’ budget papers for viable savings.

The Coalition has confirmed it is looking for savings of about $70 billion to fund its policies.

“We are preparing for an election at any possible time, so we are ready to go in case the instability in government translates to an election,” he said.

“If there is more time, we can do more work. But we are ready for an election because we believe this government is unstable.” (source)

Coalition to demolish carbon tax


The Coalition's plan

There is currently a flurry of activity to beat the deadline for written submissions from members of the public to the Joint Select Committee on the proposed carbon tax. But in all honesty, why bother? Why does anyone think that a government that is hell bent on introducing this tax at any price will take any notice of what the public think? The whole exercise, like everything else to do with the carbon tax, is a sham which will make no difference whatsoever. Have they listened before? No. Are they listening now? No.

Save your ink and the postage (or your fingers and a few KB of data sending an email). There are only two ways that this tax will be defeated: (a) some Labor MPs with a conscience vote it down; or (b) we wait for an incoming Coalition government to repeal it. Option (a) won’t work because, there aren’t any Labor politicians with a conscience (and even if there were, they would be prohibited from voting against the party anyway), so we’re left with option (b), which fortunately looks more and more likely:

THE Coalition will today sink Julia Gillard’s plan to send asylum-seekers to Malaysia and has vowed it will purge all elements of Labor’s mining and carbon taxes when it wins the next election.

In an escalation of the Coalition’s policy rhetoric, Joe Hockey has warned householders and businesses that any compensation they receive from the government over next July’s introduction of the carbon tax will be taken back by an incoming Coalition government as part of a push to improve the government’s budget position.

The opposition Treasury spokesman has also vowed to amend Labor’s industrial relations laws to deliver “worker mobility”, re-emphasised the Coalition’s promise to demolish Labor’s mineral resources rent tax and rejected the use of its proposed parliamentary budget office. (source)

In other words, any last trace of this appalling government will be airbrushed out of history. Good.

Wong pounces on Turnbull's comments


Traitor to the Coalition

Could this guy be any more of a quisling treacherous rat? Inevitably, after his criticisms of the Abbott climate policy (see earlier story), Labor has pounced, damaging Abbott and the Coalition in the process:

Finance Minister Penny Wong said Mr Turnbull was one of the few people in opposition truly committed to tackling global warming.

“What we saw last night is Malcolm really telling the truth about what the Liberal policy is,” she told Sky News.

“It’s very expensive and … it’s a con because those on his side of politics who we know really don’t want to do anything on this issue are able to roll it back and switch it off whenever they want.” (source)

Bravo Malc. Well done. Now, what else can you do to damage your own party? Just pack your bags and go and join Labor. Idiot.

Opposition budget ditches green tokenism


Spending on "green initiatives"

The Opposition will slash millions of dollars of pointless climate change spending promises by Labor if it regains power:

  • $200 million off reducing emissions on coal-fired power stations (spend it instead on reducing emissions of toxins and particulates, which would actually achieve some environmental benefit, rather than removing, at vast expense, a harmless trace gas essential for life)
  • $193 million off “climate aid” to poor countries (no global socialism here, thanks very much)
  • $76 million off funds encouraging individuals to reduce emissions (pointless tokenism)
  • $30 million ad campaign on climate change scrapped [BRAVO - Ed]
  • $278 million off a plan to develop “greener cars” (no, we need more cars like the Prius…)
  • $653 million off renewable energy schemes (which need massive government support to be even barely competitive)

All of these policies are predicated on CO2 being the primary and dominant driver of climate change, which $70 billion of research since 1990 has failed to establish. If it isn’t, every single one of them is completely, utterly, totally, and 100% pointless.

Read it here.

Comment: Abbott's uncomfortable climate policy


Abbott v Rudd

Well, the Coalition have finally revealed their climate policy, and it looks as uneasy as one would expect. At least it’s not a massive new tax a la ETS, but the gestures towards cutting carbon dioxide (well done to TA for making this small but important point) are really just that. TA looked uncomfortable on The 7.30 Report last night, defending a policy that you know he doesn’t really believe in, and Kerry O’Brien succeeded in exposing that conflict.

The problem is that, deep down, TA is a true sceptic [Bravo for that - Ed]. He knows that the climate science is corrupted and that the projections for dangerous global warming are mostly hype. However, he doesn’t believe he can say this in the current political climate – which is probably right. Not doing anything would give Labor and the Greens a field day – branding the Opposition “deniers”, “flat earthers” and every other warmist ad hominem known to man. It would also go down very badly with the public at the moment, who have been so utterly brainwashed by the government and a media in its pocket that they still believe global warming needs action. This is despite everything that has happened since Climategate in November, and the disaster of Copenhagen in December.

This, however, is starting to change. The Australian continues to print sceptical articles, and even the Fairfax press have begun doing the same. The barrage of stories exposing incompetence and manipulation or suppression of data in the IPCC reports continues unabated. The IPCC has been exposed, not as a body of scientific impartiality, but of extremist environmental advocacy.

In time, the weight of evidence against the “consensus” will eventually percolate through to the public, despite the media’s increasingly unsuccessful attempts at its suppression. Eventually (and I hope it happens before the election), the collective public penny will drop, and there will be a unanimous cry of “We’ve been conned.”

So TA should bide his time and continue with his “interim” policy, until the political climate and public opinion can accept what should be the proper Coalition position: that climate change is a non-problem.

Tony Abbott unveils Coalition climate change policy


From the ABC:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has placed a $1 billion emissions reduction fund at the heart of the Coalition’s new $3.2b climate change policy.

Announcing the policy today, Mr Abbott said the Coalition would use the fund and its policy to invest in direct measures to help the public, industry and farmers cut emissions.

Those measures would include planting 20 million trees, a $1,000 solar panel rebate and soil carbon storage.

Mr Abbott said the plan would be simpler, cheaper and more effective than the Government’s emissions trading scheme and would deliver the same 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.

“Our policy will deliver the same emissions reductions as the Government’s, but without the Government’s great big new tax,” he said.

The policy would be funded from the Budget over the forward estimates but Mr Abbott is yet to explain where the Coalition would find the savings to pay for it.

But he says the Coalition’s policy is vastly cheaper than the ETS, which he says will cost $40b over the same period.

“It’s careful, it’s costed, and it’s capped,” Mr Abbott said. (source)

And Tony Abbott has used his first question time as Opposition leader to goad Kevin Rudd into a debate on climate change, which Rudd continues to shy away from:

Mr Abbott, who earlier released the coalition’s long-awaited climate change policy, opened question time by directly challenging the prime minister.

“When I first challenged the prime minister to a public debate on climate change, he refused, saying the coalition had no policy,” he told parliament.

“Well, we have a policy which is simpler cheaper and clearer than the government’s.

“Does the prime minister have the guts to have a nationally-televised debate about climate change?” (source)

Answer: NO. And to finish off, Rudd comes out with his usual evasive nonsense:

Mr Rudd said the opposition had some simple questions to answer: Did it understand the science behind climate change, how did it propose to tackle it, and was it fair dinkum?

“Was it fair dinkum?” Oh per-lease. And I think the Opposition understands the science (or now should we say, the lack of science) better than you do, clearly.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,744 other followers

%d bloggers like this: