What is it about the way Penny Wong speaks? It’s the continual repetition of a phrase, like she’s stuck in an endless loop, that rankles so:

“We want the legislation passed, that’s what we want, that’s what we’re focused on, not only early elections,” Senator Wong said.

“Why should we pass this legislation? Because it is squarely in Australia’s national interests to take action on climate change, it is squarely in Australia’s national interest to pass the carbon pollution reduction scheme.”

Exterminate, exterminate. And in any case, you’re wrong. Please explain how crippling our economy, before we know whether other countries (our competitors) will cripple theirs, is in our national interests.

Read it here.

The latest News Poll demonstrates how well the moonbat media, the IPCC, enviro-celebs like Tim Flannery and Cate Blanchett and governments of all political shades continue to brainwash a majority of the unsuspecting public into believing the following:

1. that anthropogenic global warming [climate change?] is real and dangerous;
2. that we need drastic cuts in emissions of “carbon pollution” to “save the planet”;
3. that Rudd’s ETS will cost no jobs and will miraculously save the Great Barrier Reef.

 When the alternatives, namely:

1. climate change is predominantly natural, in which the human signal from anthropogenic CO2 is almost undetectable (despite billions of dollars of research);
2. emissions cuts means reducing energy consumption, which means limiting or reversing economic growth, which will plunge millions of people around the world (back) into poverty;
3. Rudd’s ETS will cripple the Australian economy, destroy thousands of jobs, and make not one iota of difference to the climate, either locally or globally

is not even considered. At least things are moving in the right direction, however:

According to the latest Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend, support for the government’s [ETS] scheme is still strong at 67 per cent but is down from 72 per cent in October last year.

Those uncommitted on a scheme have risen from seven to 11 per cent.

Outright opposition to the scheme is a steady 22 per cent of those surveyed.

Those “strongly in favour” of an emissions trading scheme have fallen from 35 per cent in October last year to 29 per cent last weekend.

Slow progress indeed.

Read it here. See also:

Mixed messages: Libs split on carbon
Climate change poll flags pitfalls for both leaders

It doesn’t seem to matter how many studies show that the ETS will obliterate jobs left right and centre, because the government always falls back on its Treasury modelling that says the whole thing will just be a minor irritation to the economy. And since they appear to have an almost religious duty to push through the ETS come what may, that’s not surprising. But others have different views:

THE minerals industry has demanded Kevin Rudd overhaul his proposed emissions trading system or risk smashing Australian jobs and the nation’s industrial competitiveness.

As the Prime Minister lobbied global counterparts for action on climate change in New York yesterday, the Minerals Council of Australia warned that his ETS plans were far too tough compared with new European Commission ETS proposals that emerged during the weekend.

If Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme went ahead, the council said, it would cripple the ability of Australian companies to compete against Europeans, costing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars and having no environmental benefit.

The dire warning came as Mr Rudd continued to express pessimism about the chance of a new agreement on global emissions reductions at the UN Copenhagen climate change summit in December.
…
MCA acting chief executive Brendan Pearson yesterday backed the cautious approach, seizing on weekend proposals from the European Commission to attack the CPRS as a potential job-destroyer.

Under the EC proposals, Mr Pearson said, 80 per cent of minerals producers and manufacturers would receive free permits, meaning the coal, aluminium, copper and non-ferrous metals industries would faced little cost.

At the same time, 90 per cent of Australia’s mining exports, by value, would be produced without any compensation.

“While Australia’s coalmining sector pays $5 billion in carbon costs over the next five years, the EU industry will pay nothing,” Mr Pearson said. “While the Australian gold sector pays $810million, the comparable industries in the EU (and US) will face no or limited permit costs.“

Sounds like a level playing field, doesn’t it?

Read it here.

The Opposition are pouncing on comments by Kevin Rudd on CNN about the relative timing of the ETS bill. Just for laughs, check out the language our leader uses in a formal interview (an embarrassment to Australia wherever he goes):

“The government I lead was only elected 18 months or so ago, we ratified the Kyoto Protocol immediately and we are into these negotiations big time,” he said [“Into these negotiations big time”? Oh, please – Ed].

“But you know something, our domestic emissions trading legislation was also voted down by our Senate a very short time ago.

“That doesn’t impede me from being active in these negotiations and my observation of President Obama is it doesn’t impede him either.”

The Opposition’s spokesman for the Environment, Greg Hunt, has jumped all over that statement.

“The Prime Minister is telling Australians one thing at home and telling Americans another time abroad,” he said.

“It’s absolutely clear as we’ve always maintained that we should get on and work on an international agreement that should occur before rather than after we finalise an emissions trading scheme in Australia, because we won’t know what the form of the scheme should be until we know what the rest of the world is doing.

“I actually think today’s statement to the Americans on CNN by Kevin Rudd takes away his own argument for a system before the world comes to an agreement.

We shall see. More likely, the Krudd spin cycle will deal with that little misunderstanding, and we will be back to square one by tomorrow morning.

Read it here.

This is Penny Wong’s brilliant idea to get agreement at Copenhagen. Again, living in a kind of fantasy world, where she really believes that the whole world will take notice of the proposals of a country that contributes 1.5% of global emissions. I’m sure the world will listen politely, like one does to a demented great aunt, say “That’s nice dear” and then get back to the real world:

AUSTRALIA has unveiled a compromise proposal to break the deadlocked Copenhagen climate change negotiations that offers developing countries a more flexible way to pledge their efforts towards global greenhouse gas reductions.

Under the compromise proposal, to be announced by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong today, developing countries would not have to commit to binding, economy-wide emission-reduction targets. But they would have to submit their own binding “schedule” of how and where their reductions could be made.

The idea has been described by US President Barack Obama’s special climate change envoy, Todd Stern, as a “constructive proposal”.

But then comes the big issue:

In what appears to be a reference to China and India, she will say the developing countries with “greater capacity and responsibility” would have to promise actions that added up to “significant reductions below baselines”.

So although developing countries submit their own schedules, China and India’s schedule would have to meet certain criteria to be acceptable? What are those criteria, Penny? Because, to be honest, only China and India matter in all this. And if you start setting criteria for China and India, you’re back to, er, exactly where you started. Brilliant.

Read it here.

Actually it’s not just fiction, but outright [insert L-word here]. Writing in the Fairfax press this morning, where else, Jose Manuel Barroso clearly hasn’t been looking out of the window for the last 10 years:

CLIMATE change is happening faster than we believed only two years ago. Continuing with business as usual almost certainly means dangerous, perhaps catastrophic, climate change during the course of this century. This is the most important challenge for this generation of politicians.

And at the same time, Kevin Rudd has conceded that there is little chance of any agreement at Copenhagen… but that we should still plough on with the ETS before December anyway. Maybe one of you can explain the logic, because it eludes me:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he is not prepared to delay consideration of the Government’s emissions trading scheme legislation despite conceding a global agreement remains some way off.

Mr Rudd is in New York to advance international negotiations on strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the December Copenhagen summit.

However, he is worried progress on international climate change talks are progressing too slowly to reach an agreement before [at?] Copenhagen.

And unfortunately, the Opposition’s stand-in emissions trading spokesman, Ian Macfarlane still believes that negotiating with the Government is the best option:

The Government says it is prepared to negotiate on the legislation if the Coalition puts forward specific changes to the bills.

Mr Macfarlane says he expects to have amendments ready before Parliament resumes in four weeks.

“I’m still confident that within a week, I’ll be able to sit down with the Department of Climate Change and have a preliminary discussion about their latest information from Copenhagen and following that, frame up a set of amendments over the following two weeks that I’ll firstly take to Shadow Cabinet and then to the party room,” he said.

Wrong answer.

Read it here and here.

The Age reports on another “yoof” climate campaign wittily entitled “Youth Decide” (“you decide,” geddit? Link here.) in which the kids of today vote on which world they wish to inherit. Here are the three options:

Even The Age pokes fun at the poll, wondering why we should pay attention to the opinion of 12 year olds (brainwashed at school by endless showings of An Inconvenient Truth in science class, rather than in politics class). But it also includes an almost unbelievable quote, revealing a great deal about The Age‘s view on the campaign to save the planet from climate change:

There is not, now, much value in arguing about the science of climate change. Even if it’s wrong, enough people now believe it that it may as well be right. 

In other words, give up trying to argue that the science is wrong. We’ve successfully pulled the wool over the public’s eyes now, mostly thanks to the misrepresentations in the media, and primarily thanks to the alarmist Fairfax (which includes The Age itself and The Sydney Morning Herald), and so who cares if it complete BS? We will achieve our political goals whatever happens now.

Well, I have news for you, Michael Coulter and your colleagues in Fairfax. Whether you like it or not, we will continue to argue that the alarmist science is wrong until there isn’t a breath left in our sceptical bodies. And nothing The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald prints will stop that.

Read it here.

Cutting population to save the planet:

Birth control ‘could combat climate change’

Read it here.

For some reason, Kevin Rudd has delusions of grandeur [delusions of adequacy? – Ed] when it comes to climate matters. For some reason, he and his “Astro Boy” sidekick Penny Wong believe that what Australia does in terms of emissions legislation will somehow influence the rest of the world – that because a country that emits 1.4% of global emissions will legally commit itself to reducing that figure to 1.2% by 2020, that fact alone will make the US, China and India see the error of their ways and sign up to a crippling deal at Copenhagen in December. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

The Prime Minister warned yesterday international agreement was “not nearly a done deal” and shifted his climate change pitch to domestic politics, attacking opposition disunity on the issue.

His attack came as Climate Change Minister Penny Wong also appeared pessimistic about Copenhagen but said Australia should still embrace an emissions trading system to set an example.

The comments came as an expert in international negotiations told The Weekend Australian there was no prospect of agreement in Copenhagen because differences between the positions of the US, the European Union, China and India were too great.

Alan Oxley, a former senior trade negotiator for the Australian government, said it would take years to craft workable agreements on reducing carbon emissions and emissions trading.
…
Senator Wong, who yesterday met Democrat congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, who are sponsoring the US bill, said the message from the Obama administration and key congressional leaders was that they were committed to passing their climate change laws as soon as possible. [The chances are getting smaller by the day – Ed]

She said the worst position for Australia would be to delay action, as it would only encourage delay by the US and the rest of the world.

So even though there is little prospect of agreement in Copenhagen, and that the US climate bill is teetering on the brink, Australia should plough on to “set an example”? Madness.

Read it here.

If this was the other way round, a celeb speaking at a climate sceptic forum, the media would be having a field day. The air would be thick with ad hominem digs about how he or she was not a climate scientist, or they are otherwise not qualified to speak, or ridiculing them for not understanding the issues, or criticising them for becoming involved in political matters, or… or… But because this fits in perfectly with the media’s built in alarmist bias, it’s all hushed admiration and fawning news reports:

Actor Hugh Jackman and World Vision Australia chief Tim Costello will speak at a climate change forum in New York alongside world leaders including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Jackman and Mr. Costello will call for urgent action during Climate Week NYC, a series of events being held throughout New York City from Monday.

The 40-year-old actor, who is one of the most sought after stars in Hollywood and an ambassador for World Vision, is campaigning for a global agreement to alleviate the impact of climate change on the poor.

‘I hope to be a voice for the billion people in developing countries who will be the hardest hit by changing weather patterns, by the droughts and floods that destroy their crops and threaten their food security,’ Jackman said in a statement.

‘Climate Week NYC provides an ideal forum to help underscore the urgency for world leaders to secure and fund an ambitious global climate change deal in Copenhagen that is effective, fair and binding.’

A voice for a billion people. Modest as always, Hugh.

Read it here.