Billions wasted on climate gimmicks

Unilateral climate action

I seem to be using the “money down the lavatory” image quite a lot at the moment, because it illustrates so well the pointlessness of unilateral Australian action on climate (and indeed any attempts at climate mitigation for that matter). Anyway, who cares if we shamefully waste your hard-earned taxpayer dollars? We’re “saving the planet”, right?

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that over $5 billion has been wasted on such gimmicks in the last decade – that’s an awful lot of nurses, teachers and policemen by the way. And what difference has it made to the climate? Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Because Australia’s emissions are a piddling 1.5% of the global total, it wouldn’t make a skerrick of impact even if we reduced our emissions to ZERO overnight (and that is all the while assuming that CO2 has an effect on the climate anyway, which is far from certain):

MORE than $5.5 billion has been spent by federal governments during the past decade on climate change programs that are delivering only small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

An analysis of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated.

While some have reduced emissions cost-effectively, many of the more expensive schemes are exorbitant ways of tackling climate change, costing far more for each tonne of carbon avoided than any mooted emissions trading scheme or carbon tax.

The worst offenders have included the Labor government’s rebates for rooftop solar panels, which cost $300 or more for every tonne of carbon abated, and the Howard government’s remote renewable power generation scheme, which paid up to $340 for each tonne of carbon.

By contrast, the proposed emissions trading scheme blocked by the Coalition and the Greens in the previous Parliament was expected to put a price on carbon of $20 to $25 a tonne in its early years. (source)

So in the Moonbat Herald’s view, an ETS would be better, because whilst it would still be a total waste of money, it would be less of a waste than the gimmicks we’ve had so far? Great argument…

And similarly, Julia’s deceitful carbon tax, due to be introduced in 2012 in a cynical breach of an express pre-election promise not to do so, will also be a complete waste of money that could better be spent on something (anything) else – health, education, helping the poorest in society etc etc. At least the Herald Sun demonstrates some climate sanity this morning, exposing the pointlessness of unilateral action:

Apart from the most blatant political dishonesty, Gillard’s embrace of a carbon tax is almost exquisite in its stupidity. In 40 years of watching politicians and policy, I cannot think of anything that comes even remotely close.

Analyst and commentator Henry Ergas nailed it exactly in our sister paper, The Australian, last Friday.

Now the core argument propounded for a carbon tax or its equivalent, a price on carbon is that we in Australia have the most to lose from supposed “climate change”, formerly known as global warming.

We’ll leave aside the stupendous self-absorption in that claim. That what happens to 22 million Australians is so far more important than the other seven billion people on the planet, the overwhelming majority of whom live in dramatically more degraded circumstances than us.

That while yes, so the argument goes, there is a big cost in reducing our use of fossil fuels the entire point of the carbon tax; but the benefits to us as a nation will eventually over time exceed those costs.

The critical point is that those benefits of preventing global warming arrive only if, to state the obvious, we do actually prevent global warming. That is to say, only if the world joins us in cutting the use of fossil fuels.

The simple but absolutely fundamental point Ergas made is the devastating double loss we will suffer if we engage in unilateral mitigation (of carbon dioxide emissions).

But international agreement is not reached and the “catastrophic outcome it (Gillard, chief climate hysterics Ross Garnaut and Tim Flannery etc) fears eventuates”.

That is to say our punitive carbon tax wrecks our economy. But we still suffer the droughts, the bushfires, the hurricanes and floods that climate change is supposed to deliver.

It is a simple but extraordinarily important point that I have not seen made by any other commentator. (source)

Except me, that is – he should have been reading my blog for the past two and a half years. It continually amazes me that supposedly intelligent politicians cannot see this blindingly obvious point. But that’s what happens when you are overwhelmed by a faith-based belief which prevents you from seeing sense any more. I really hope the public aren’t that stupid.


  1. We need a big campaign to stop it.

  2. Very true!!!

  3. Very good summary, Mark.

  4. If You could get one person to see this for Every Dollar that was spent and wasted, It would have a certain impact.

  5. Just to show how insignificant our emissions are compared to China.

    Notice that just their increase is more than twice our total emissions

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      Notice that just their increase is more than twice our total emissions

      Come now rukidding.

      You should know logic has no place in the “non” debate with warmists.

      The term is alien to them….

  6. The Loaded Dog says:

    Feel like a laugh?

    Have a read of this folk – it’s from “Planetsave” so you know it’s righteous.

    I wonder when we should start being afraid?

    Note the comments – not looking too good for the cause I’m afraid. They’ll probably delete them in due course.

    Can’t have a continuation of this CLIMATE BLASPHEMY now can we?

  7. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    Julia Gillard is supposed to be smart… but I know I am definitely smart. Here is why.

    If I were the Prime Minister, I would simply request the scientific community to produce to me, by way of even just one peer reviewed scientific study, the empirical evidence that proves CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming.

    I would then submit it to Junk Science so that I could win (and give to charity) the US $500,000 on offer… for being the first person to provide empirical evidence that proves human activity is causing catastrophic global warming (see the following link):

    But as I said, I am definitely smart. I know that no such empirical evidence exists. In which case, I’d inform my fellow Australians, and the rest of the world, that there is no basis on which to act on the “man-made global warming scare” and that Australia was no longer going to have a bar of it until such time that empirical evidence is available!


  1. […] environment in terms of money spent and what was achieved? $5.5 billion up in smoke! That’s our money they have flushed down the toilet – not […]

%d bloggers like this: