Election 2010: Greens want 100% renewables by 2030

25 July, 2010 by

Vote Labor and this is what you will get

100% out of touch with reality. 100% deluded. 100% on another planet. 100% dangerous for the future of Australia. That just about sums up the Greens, who, as we must keep reminding everyone, will have the balance of power in the Senate after their shady back-room deal with Labor (which Jooolia Gillard doesn’t want to talk about for obvious reasons). To propose 100% renewables by 2030 is pure madness – let’s just think for a moment what that actually means: no coal-fired power stations at all (and no nuclear, of course, no, no, no, we can’t have that), no petrol or diesel driven vehicles at all, no natural gas at all, and all within the next 20 years! Not only that, but they plan to rely on fart power and sunbeams instead! Words cannot begin to describe the utter lunacy of this. But this is precisely what they want, and what they will demand when they hold the balance of power in the Senate. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports:

The Greens want to completely replace Australia’s reliance on coal with renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

Greens Senator Christine Milne said yesterday: “Australia can harness our tremendous resources of the sun, wind, ocean, Earth and human ingenuity to replace our reliance on coal with 100 per cent renewable energy within decades.”

Senator Milne said this could be achieved by 2030 with the right preparation and infrastructure. (source)

And Miranda Devine, also in the Herald yesterday, spelt out exactly what life under the Greens would be like:

There’s a lot more Brown and the Greens want if Labor wins: mandated zero net greenhouse gas emissions, the effective end of coal-fired power generation, phasing out of coal exports, a ban on new coalmines or power stations, removal of GM crops, and active discouragement of cars. They want a ban on the exploration, mining and export of uranium, and closure of the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor, which produces medical isotopes used for cancer treatment. They want to restrict funding of private schools. They want to abolish mandatory detention of asylum seekers, and to expand the definition of refugee to include ”environmental” or ”sexuality” refugees. They want to legislate for same-sex marriage, tinker with age of consent laws, establish ”intersex” as a legal gender, fund gender reassignment, require government to consult lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex people on policy, and provide easier access to abortion. On drugs, they are harm minimisation all the way, with more needle exchange programs and injecting rooms. And be prepared for a barrage of nanny-statism, starting with a ban on junk food advertising [which ACM commented on here].

The Greens’ published policies are carefully couched in escape clauses, to avoid the scare campaigns of past elections, when their extreme social agenda cost them votes. But the effect will be the same. And of course, their big-ticket policy, the one with the most nation-changing consequences, is an ETS or carbon tax, with householders paying the price in soaring energy costs. (source)

I have written to Tony Abbott this morning encouraging him to expose the Greens for the extremist, far-Left, hysterical environmental advocacy group that they are, who are not fit to participate in politics full stop, let alone determining the future of Australia under a Labor government. I encourage all Australians to do the same.

UPDATE: To contact Tony Abbott, go to: http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/ContactTony.aspx, or email: tony.abbott@liberal.org.au (Liberals) or Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au (Parliamentary). Thanks to Sean for the suggestion.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Election 2010: Half don't even know what an ETS is!

24 July, 2010 by

ETS? Never heard of it.

Yet oddly a majority of the population are still in favour of it (allegedly). Despite being a small poll, the number of people stopped in the street by Sydney’s Daily Telegraph who didn’t have a clue what an emissions trading scheme actually is was astonishing.

The Daily Telegraph yesterday surveyed 150 people in five Sydney suburbs and in the marginal seat of Robertson on the Central Coast, with the results showing Ms Gillard could have a lot of work ahead of her before she even gets consensus on what ETS means.

Just 73 of 150 voters knew what the letters ETS stood for, while only 53 of the 150 supported the introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme.

Parramatta local Shaun Fernandez, 29, said he didn’t support an ETS because “it doesn’t seem like it will aid in the reduction of emissions”.

And almost half of 30 voters approached in Robertson – one of the most marginal seats in NSW – said they had never heard of the ETS concept. (source)

We’ve seen these kinds of results before. Despite all the government spin and advertising, and saturation media coverage and support, the general public have very little understanding of the ETS, and therefore the reality of what it will achieve (nothing) and at what cost (substantial). People tend to think that Australia should be “doing something” for the climate, because that’s the politically correct attitude to take (after all, who doesn’t want to “save the planet”?), but they have no comprehension of the fact that an ETS or any kind of carbon price in Australia will have no effect on the climate whatsoever, especially when China is installing new coal fired power stations with emissions equivalent to our entire annual CO2 output every few weeks. And that’s even assuming that microscopic changes in a harmless trace gas actually have a discernible effect on the climate over and above natural forces and noise.

They also do not understand the cost to our economy, and that the price of virtually everything, goods, services, you name it, will go up. And jobs will move offshore to countries, like China and India, that are more concerned about economic growth and raising their populations out of poverty than some liberal-elite ivory-tower urban “save the planet” crusade.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Greens: we will force a carbon tax

23 July, 2010 by

Not fit for politics

I mean, we knew this was coming. As soon as Green preferences had given victory to Labor, and Labor had ensured the Greens won the balance of power in the Senate, the gun would be held to Julia Gillard’s head. But Christine Milne has done it already:

Senator Milne said the Greens would introduce legislation to put a price on carbon as soon as the next parliament sits and said Labor would have “no excuses” to delay an emissions trading scheme if the Greens win the balance of power in the Senate.

“Prime Minister Gillard has shown a complete and utter lack of leadership on climate change, What we have heard is recycled rhetoric for the last four years, what we haven’t heard is any commitment to action,” she said, in Canberra.

So now we know. A vote for Labor is a vote for the Greens, which is a vote for an economy-wrecking carbon tax.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Election 2010: Gillard's desperate "citizens' assembly" on climate

23 July, 2010 by

A horse designed by a committee

When in doubt, set up a committee – or in this case, two committees. Julia Gillard and Labor don’t have a clue how to address the climate change policy issue, especially with the Coalition stealing the thunder with their direct action plan [even though this blog believes that no policy on climate change is required at all; it’s like having a policy on “the sun rising in the morning” – it will happen anyway, so why bother having a policy on it?] so they plan to set up a brace of committees, one of scientists and one of the general public:

The ABC understands Ms Gillard will outline plans to set up a committee of scientists to advise the Government on climate change.

The committee will be paired with a citizens’ assembly, consisting of 100-200 volunteers who will gauge feeling of the community on its attitude towards putting a price on carbon, and feed it back to the Government.

And we can all imagine who will be on the scientists committee – usual suspect alarmists like David “Asteroid” Karoly and Will Steffen, maybe headed up by someone independent like Penny Wong, perhaps? Hang on a minute, I wonder if they’ll ask Ian Plimer or Bob Carter? Yeah, right. If they did, this author would fall off his perch. And we can guess the “volunteers” will all be paid up Labor/Green warmists who have all been brainwashed by government propaganda and a compliant media to give the answers the government want to hear.

The Coalition have already, and rightly, rubbished the proposal:

Shadow Environment Spokesman Greg Hunt says Julia Gillard’s proposed “citizens assembly” will fail to produce action.

He says the Opposition is promising a $2.5 billion fund to battle emissions.

“It’s a recipe for endless Rudd-type talks,” he said.

“Kevin Rudd himself would be proud of the 2020 summit meets Copenhagen.”

I disagree that it will fail to produce action, it probably will produce action – an ETS or a carbon tax, both of which would trash Australia’s already weakened economy for no benefit to the climate, locally or globally, whatsoever.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

23 July, 2010 by

Skewering the clueless

As always a great read!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Kevin Rudd "in line for UN climate job"

22 July, 2010 by

I know 5 facts about climate change, all of them wrong

Our socially-disfunctional-verging-on-autistic ex-PM would fit right in at the UN, spouting platitudes about saving the planet and the evils of capitalism whilst being whisked off to all-expenses-paid climate gab fests in exotic locations around the globe. At least at the UN he’s less likely to do any damage:

News Limited papers are reporting that the former prime minister is being considered for the top-level job, which would force him to leave Australia. [Tragedy! I can’t bear the thought!]

The newspapers quote an unnamed source who says Mr Rudd could be made a special envoy or an ambassador reporting directly to the UN secretary-general.

They say the United Nations “refused to hose down speculation” on the appointment.

Mr Rudd was in New York last week and met the UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.

They are most welcome to him – how about starting next week?

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Election 2010: a vote for Labor is a vote for the Greens

21 July, 2010 by

Not fit for politics

That’s the inevitable result of the cosy little back-room deal for preferences struck by Labor and the Greens earlier this week.  The Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate, meaning that no piece of legislation which does not have bipartisan support will get through without the Greens’ say so. The question that must be asked, therefore, is: what have Labor secretly agreed to in order to secure their support for government legislation? Who knows. The media obviously don’t care, but the people should care.

The Greens are an extremist, single-issue, far-Left environmental advocacy group that shouldn’t even be dignified by calling them a political party. Once they get their hands on the levers of power in the Senate, who knows what nonsense they will force Labor to enact – maybe interfering, meddling, nanny-state anti-Libertarian claptrap like this, or much worse: an ETS or carbon tax.

The Australian people should be afraid, very afraid.

And whilst we’re on the subject of extremist, single-issue, far-Left environmental advocacy groups, the WWF today proves that if you ask the right questions in a poll, you’ll get the right answers:

A new Galaxy poll of four marginal Queensland seats has found support for an emissions trading scheme (ETS) continues to grow.

The poll was commissioned by World Wildlife Fund Australia.

It found 74 per cent of respondents in the seats of Brisbane, Bowman, Petrie and Ryan say they are in favour of an ETS to reduce carbon pollution.

The figure is up 4 per cent from the previous poll conducted in June.

The survey also found 87 per cent of those who identified themselves as Labor voters want an ETS by next year. (source)

I am currently trying to source the question wording, and I’m sure we won’t be surprised when we see it.

UPDATE: Fair play to WWF for courteously providing the information requested. The primary question asked regarding the ETS was:

Overall, are you in favour or opposed to the introduction of an Emissions Trading Scheme to help reduce carbon pollution in Australia?

66% responded “in favour”. My gripe with this is the reference to “carbon pollution” rather than “carbon dioxide”. Any question that asks “do you want to reduce pollution” will predispose respondents to answer in the affirmative – I mean, who doesn’t want to reduce pollution? Unfortunately, the public do not understand enough about the real meaning of an ETS, and that’s thanks to a politically correct media. I wonder what the response would be if the question had been worded “are you in favour of an ETS to reduce the harmless trace gas carbon dioxide and which will increase your electricity bills by 50% and have no discernible effect on climate either locally or globally”?

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Whitewash: Climategate enquiry papers "endorsed by Phil Jones"

20 July, 2010 by

Judge and jury at his own trial

The problems for Phil Jones and UEA/CRU just won’t go away. It has now been revealed that the eleven academic papers supposedly independently chosen for the Oxburgh enquiry were in fact reviewed and approved by Phil Jones himself. Bishop Hill reports:

When the original emails were released I reported on an inquiry made to Lord Oxburgh by Oliver Morton of the Economist about how Oxburgh’s Eleven papers were chosen. When he replied, Oxburgh said in essence that he didn’t know.

What I received was a list from the university which I understand was chosen by the Royal Society The contact with the RS was I believe through [name redacted] but I don’t know who he consulted. [Name redacted], when I asked him, agreed that the original sample was fair.

Well, now we know who the redactions were. The contact through with the Royal Society was through Martin Rees – we knew that already. The other redaction, the other person consulted about whether the sample of papers was reasonable, was…Phil Jones.

Now, whichever way you look at it, this is a funny question to put to the accused if one’s objective is a fair trial. I mean, what could Jones say? “You’ve picked all my bad papers”? And of course Jones must have known that the sample was not representative. (source)

And Anthony Watts again summarises the lunacy of this:

The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. And, to add insult to injury, when you let the accused endorse which pieces of evidence might be a “fair sample”, is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”? (source)

Once again, we see climate alarmists fudging results to achieve a pre-conceived outcome. This is not the way that science, or independent investigations of scientific integrity, should be carried out.

But I’m not complaining – while this goes on, the warmists’ credibility is slowly but surely seeping away.

UPDATE: Even warming-crazed “Non Scientist” magazine calls out the enquiries:

Russell’s team left other stones unturned. They decided against detailed analysis of all the emails in the public domain. They examined just three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of IPCC reports. There were others. They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU. Surely openness would require their release.

All this, plus the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell’s conclusion that the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists concerned “are not in doubt”.

Some will argue it is time to leave climategate behind. But it is difficult to justify the conclusion of Edward Acton, University of East Anglia vice-chancellor, that the CRU has been “completely exonerated”. Openness in sharing data, even with your critics, is a legal requirement.

But what happened to intellectual candour – especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be. (source)

Ouch, that must hurt.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

BREAKING NEWS: Stephen Schneider dead

20 July, 2010 by

News release from Stanford here.

Filed Under: Climate

UK Climate Madness: switch off motorway lights to reduce emissions

19 July, 2010 by

The UK will soon look like North Korea

Never mind the fact that, you know, drivers might need them to, er, see where the f**k they’re going? Another example of utter, total, jawdroppingly stupid moonbattery from the UK, and yet another example of where imaginary, computer-modelled deaths from climate change will be spared at the expense of real deaths in car accidents from unlit motorways.

The Highways Agency announced that an eight-mile stretch of the M6 in Lancashire would be the seventh site in England where the lights are turned off between midnight and 5am. The quango, which is responsible for more than 4,000 miles of motorway and trunk road, said the move will save money and carbon emissions and even stop light pollution.

Andy Withington, the area performance manager for south Lancashire, said only quiet stretches of road are chosen [oh, that’s OK then] and pointed out that junctions, where most accidents happen, will be lit.

“This is the seventh site in England and we expect it to work as successfully as everywhere else – achieving up to a 40 per cent saving in carbon emissions and energy use as well as giving local communities reduced light pollution of the night sky,” he said.

There is literally no end to the madness.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»