Un-common sense
Common sense from Barnaby Joyce:
MANKIND has been on a quest to drag itself up from dark streets, disease and servitude. Pretty much all of mankind is now squared away on the mission statement but success around the office in these objectives has been fickle.
I have come to the conclusion that the same cranial attributes that developed the wheel later developed the Apollo moon landing and it was not two different species. Lately we seem to have decided that the ingenuity to run faster in Australia comes by placing heavier weights around our ankles and if all fails others will sit down and wait for us.
…
Australia has to take a reality pill about its position in the world and our effective relationship with our near neighbours. It is fantasy to believe the people of India, China, Indonesia and so many other places will be inclined to have their people stay one minute longer in poverty or hunger because of a self-indulgent internal political debate about an impossible outcome, cooling the planet, from Canberra.
If we want to be relevant and, more to the point, survive in what is our region, Southeast Asia, then we need to help them get the power on and provide them with the resources to do it, provide them with the reliable high-quality food that we take for granted and realise that trading gets Australia far more brownie points than preaching.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
Its about time Barnaby had a quite word with Tony Abbott about ditching his ridiculous direct action climate cooling plan. If you really believe this climate change nonsence as Tony assures us that he does, then Gillards carbon dioxide tax would probably be the way to go. Not spending billions of dollars planting millions of trees and subsidising solar panels for one and all. Why did he have to rush in with this half baked plan anyway. I think the majority of Australians are quite happy to adopt a wait and seee attitude on climatre change, and then forget about in a few years as it becomes more obvious it is a non event.
Totally agree – I came to say the same thing. Time to put down the cliamte policies and say ‘we’ll close the dept climate change, fold it back into envrionment, and have a report back on global action every two years. When it looks like the majority of our competitors are doing the same, then we’ll do something.
It worked for Stephen Harper, and Canada is just as chock-full of barking mad greenies as we are. Abbott needs to feel confident of the silent majority out there who have learnt that being skeptical doesn’t lead to a fiery death in hell. All the while he tries to support the 5% cut and jump through hoops, his credibility will stretch to breaking point.
He should take the productivity report – and say ; OK, this says we’re mid pack with existing direct action. No more new climate initiatives, let’s sit back and see what happens for 5 years. At this point, I think there is enough support to get him over the line.
By then the whole thing will be long-gone, replaced by a real financial crisis and climate scientists will have to take up mooning biker bars to generate death threats and abuse.
I hope you are right about the five years. The last great belief system was eugenics it lasted 50 years. Only the excesses of the Nazi ended it. The irrational fear of nuclear power is still with us after many decades. I do not wish it to get colder or for an economic collapse of the developed countries but only those will end this nonsense.
The Abbott/Hunt policy deserves a chance and until Gillard calls an election NOBODY will be able to analyse it from outside the party, Turnbull is suffering from “sour grapes syndrome” so that Lateline foray was a little rich.
It comes down to THE CARBON TAX COMPENSATION being the final death of it and the reason why it is taking so long.
Households were originally getting 100% now down to 50%
Industry in danger of production – off shore – countries without a tax 30%
Other Industry say 30%
UN Fees say 15% (Government forget to tell you about this one)
Administration 10% (another bit of amnesia by Gillard & Combet)
Possible tax evasion, higher taxes may encourage firms to hide emissions
This will then need a regulating body say another 5%
Productivity chose not to dable into a price therefore this may mean it a real problem for reasons other than political. Hence higher prices maybe required. It is interesting in Wong’s attempt to destroy Abbott’s Direct Action Plan the DCC-In- Confidence bief stated the price as $50/tonne.
In summary that comes to 140% compensation, so do we then find more companies until we reach the $16.1 billion? OR have an election NOW?
Richard N,
There is the spectre of trade embargos by trading partners, particularly in the E.U. if it appears that Australia is switching off carbon dioxide reduction.
Example- price penalties placed on Qantas recently, in the UK. and as we know the EU has gone overboard on carbon (dioxide) reduction and cap and trade.
I feel Tony Abbott is playing a balancing act, against the Gillard government’s carbon tax, followed by an Emissions Trading Scheme.
If it remains as a carbon tax or the coalition’s direct action plan, the legislation could be repealed. If the government’s carbon (dioxide) tax becomes an Emissions Trading Scheme, it would become extremely difficult to repeal, due to contracts, and compensation payments. A legal nightmare that would only keep the litigation and contract lawyers happy.
There is also the commitments that have been made at Cancun 2010, by Minister Combet.
The UN Fast Start Financing Fund -“only $599million AU “.
The UN Green Climate Fund, still in negotiation, but mooted to be 10% of a carbon tax, that the Greens want to merge into an Emissions Trading Scheme. At the Greens desired cost of up to the $100/ton CO2, would make a nice “donation” to the UN’s money-go-round.
JeffT – whatever the trade embargoes are, they’ll still be cheaper than paying the tax. Better to pay the EU tax when flying there, than paying the Au tax on flying everywhere. Let the Europeans argue about sending Australian tourism to Asia and America. Trade retaliation wars are all about who can shoot their toes off the fastest, so let them at it.
You don’t repeal an emmisions trading scheme, you issue millions in free credits.
Barnaby asks direct sensible questions like by how much will an Australian carbon tax affect world emissions. Few journalists ask those questions Uhlmann did when he asked Bob Brown what would he replace the 50 billion dollar export industry with, but it is rare. The government wants us to believe that the cost will be minimal but no-one ever asks “how will it change anything then”?
Sorry guys, but I just dont buy the need to do anything to pacify the UN or associated warmist governments. They are all talk. How couild they place any trade embargos on Australia and not China ? And we know even these warmists are not that stupid.No, I think Tony can put his ridiculous direct action climate cooling policy back in the same drawer as his overambitious childcare policy.He seemed to come up with that one over night as well.
If you genuinely believe in global warming, after you read this text – definately you will not believe. If you are a Sceptic – you will have real proofs as to why you are correct in not believeing If is known what is on this website; Stefan Mitich. Stefan Mitich | Climate Change /Global Warming Lies scientifically exposed, by The Resistance
If you genuinely believe in global warming, after you read this text – definately you will not believe. So-far, the sceptics did not produce one solid / scientific evidence for the last 15 years.
http://www.stefanmitich.com or in the book;
[snip – please keep comments relevant and not just a plug, thanks]
[snip – ditto]
Stefan I looked at your link and condensed book, I don’t know whether it is worthwhile or not but your style shows that reading it will be very difficult. Sorry I am not prepared to attempt it. Be aware though this not about logic or reason it is about quelling a neo pagan mother earth cult. See http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Greenpeace-Dropout-Sensible-Environmentalist/dp/0986480827/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308201278&sr=8-1 to get an idea of what I mean. Having a good look at that book’s style would be also worthwhile.
Agreed. 99 pages of dense type is rather unapproachable. I’d hate to see the full version…
If you do read the 99 pages, the condensed version of my book; your coment would be completly different. Be fair to yourself and read it. English is not my first or second language; but only I have the realy scientific proofs, proven all, now. [snip – sorry that’s enough on this topic]
[snip – ditto again]