Unbelievable

12 March, 2011 by

Devastation in Japan

Yep, you’ve guessed it. In the wake of the tragic events in Japan, a hysterical global warming activist site [grist.org – no link because I don’t want to give that bunch of ecotards any more traffic, but you can find it yourself] has linked climate change to increased earthquakes and tsunamis. We’ve heard this before, of course, see here, but to publish so soon after such an event shows astonishing bad taste.

So far, today’s tsunami has mainly affected Japan — there are reports of up to 300 dead in the coastal city of Sendai — but future tsunamis could strike the U.S. and virtually any other coastal area of the world with equal or greater force, say scientists. In a little-heeded warning issued at a 2009 conference on the subject, experts outlined a range of mechanisms by which climate change could already be causing more earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic activity.

“When the ice is lost, the earth’s crust bounces back up again and that triggers earthquakes, which trigger submarine landslides, which cause tsunamis,” Bill McGuire, professor at University College London, told Reuters.

Melting ice masses change the pressures on the underlying earth, which can lead to earthquakes and tsunamis, but that’s just the beginning. Rising seas also change the balance of mass across earth’s surface, putting new strain on old earthquake faults, and may have been partly to blame for the devastating 2004 tsunami that struck Southeast Asia, according to experts from the China Meteorological Administration.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? And as Soylent Green rightly points out:

Earthquakes and tidal waves never happened before industrialisation.

These half-wits have no concept of the fact that earth is, and has always been, a dynamic planet. Earthquakes and tsunamis are what the earth does.

h/t Soylent Green [offensive language alert – he was rightly very, very angry at this]

 

 

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Combet on climate action

11 March, 2011 by

Half-truths and misrepresentations

The Sydney Moonbat Herald prints Greg Combet’s response to an article by Julie Bishop, which gives me a perfect opportunity for a spot of deconstruction and hopefully demolition. Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen. Here we go:

The puerile opinion piece by Deputy Leader of the Opposition Julie Bishop shows how the Coalition perpetuates misinformation to hide the fact it does not have a credible plan to cut Australia’s carbon pollution.

Combet accuses the Coalition of misinformation? That’s ripe for a start. How much of a cut in global temperature will our “carbon price” achieve Greg? What did Julia Gillard say before the election about “no carbon tax under the government I lead”? And what is “carbon pollution” anyway? Soot? Because it certainly isn’t carbon dioxide. Misinformation is your speciality, and it’s there for all to see. And his petulant use of the word “puerile” to dismiss any dissenting view speaks volumes of the arrogant, contemptuous mindset of this government. And all of that in the first sentence? It’s not looking good so far…

It is appropriate to correct the record.

It is incorrect to imply that Australia risks going it alone on pricing carbon.

Thirty-two countries and 10 US states already have emissions trading schemes. California, one of the largest economies in the world, is due to start emissions trading next year.

Other countries, including China, Taiwan, Chile and South Korea, and a number of Canadian provinces, are either considering developing their own or already have trial emissions trading schemes in place.

Carbon taxes are in place in Britain, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Canada and under discussion elsewhere, including in the EU, Japan and South Africa.

China has a tax on coal, oil and gas extraction in its largest gas-producing province and plans to extend this to all other western provinces.

India has nationwide tax of 50 rupees per tonne levied on both imported coal and coal produced domestically, to be used for clean energy development.

South Africa has released a discussion paper for public comment on a broad carbon tax.

This, again, is simply nonsense. Most of the countries in the world with emissions trading schemes are part of the EU arrangement, where corruption, fraud and organised crime have made the carbon market over there a joke. The US has abandoned federal plans for climate mitigation schemes, with Obama desperately trying the EPA back-door route. US states are bailing out of their go-it-alone plan, with New Hampshire voting to leave the scheme (which only covered less than a fifth of US states anyway). Japan has just abandoned plans for an ETS.

And please don’t insult us by quoting China or India. Both of those massive emitters are far more concerned about their economic growth than tilting at climate windmills (or wind farms, perhaps). Their emissions will continue to rise over the coming decades, dwarfing any mitigation that Australia may put in place. To believe that the world is heading towards greater climate action is just delusional.

Bishop suggests it is not relevant if Australia’s per capita emissions are high. The fact is that Australia has the highest per capita emissions of all developed countries, about 27 tonnes per person.

This compares to a world average of about 6 tonnes per person, and an average of about 14 tonnes per person in other developed countries.

Developing countries consistently point to Australia’s high per capita emissions to justify why we should take strong action on climate change.

If we did not make our fair contribution to international efforts, how could we expect the big emitting developing countries such as China and India to take meaningful action?

Of course, a country’s total level of carbon pollution is important. That’s why the government is working with the main emitters – the 20 countries responsible for about 80 per cent of the world’s emissions – to support an effective global outcome. Australia is one of these top 20 emitters.

A really good effort to justify pointless unilateral action, Greg, but no-one will buy it. Australia has a small population, with a very high emissions economy – due primarily to the geology of our country. Therefore per capita emissions will inevitably be high. But that is totally irrelevant in these discussions. We contribute less than 1.3% of global emissions, and nothing, repeat NOTHING, we do alone will make the slightest bit of difference to the climate. One of my commenters pointed out that by land area, Australia’s emissions are negligible: 60 tonnes per square km compared to 700 t/km2 in China and 3000 t/km2 in Japan.

Australia is in the top 20 emitters, but again, that is meaningless, because the top ten alone contribute nearly 80% of global emissions. The remaining 20% comprises the entire rest of the world, including Australia.

It is the case that the 2009 conference in Copenhagen did not deliver all that was hoped for. But it is wrong to say that there is no action happening globally or that Copenhagen did not make important progress.

In the lead up to Copenhagen all the big emitters pledged to reduce their carbon pollution. These pledges were formally incorporated into the United Nations process at the most recent negotiations, in Cancun last December. The Cancun meeting also made concrete progress on other key elements needed to underpin an effective global response.

Irrespective of what happens under the UN negotiations, countries, regions and states around the world are taking real action on climate change now.

Please don’t mention Copenhagen… oh, you just did. Copenhagen was an utter disaster, irrespective of how you spin it. The worthless Copenhagen accord was of less value than the paper it was printed on. And you know it. And Cancun did very little to advance that process. And you know it. The reality is that there is less desire for global action on climate now than there was five or ten years ago. And the GFC has focussed people’s minds on what is really important – economic growth and prosperity, rather than chasing the nebulous chimera of climate change.

The Coalition has ridiculed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the US. But look at some facts. The RGGI scheme caps carbon pollution for the electricity sector in the 10 participating north-eastern states. The combined population for these 10 states is 50 million – more than double Australia’s total population.

Each state auctions pollution permits to power stations, and commits to use at least 25 per cent of their auction revenue for clean energy programs, and to assist consumers to reduce their use of electricity.

In practice all participating states are far exceeding this commitment, investing 80 per cent of their proceeds – totaling $775 million so far – in renewable and energy efficiency programs.

The RGGI’s executive director has said that these programs show $3-$4 in benefits for every $1 invested. Furthermore, several businesses have realised energy cost savings great enough to retain or add new employees.

See above. New Hampshire has bailed out. And what effect will this have on the climate? NOTHING. Nada, Zip, Zilch. Just money thrown away that could have been spent on hospitals, schools, or in fact anything other than climate mitigation. And don’t start on the mythical “green economy”. It doesn’t exist. For every “green job” created, between 3 and 4 proper jobs are lost. And for every dollar spent on “green investment”, real investment suffers.

The Coalition has also alleged that emissions trading schemes are bad because of vulnerability to fraud, referring to cyber attacks on the European Emissions Trading System. Europe has taken steps to strengthen the integrity of its carbon market to prevent criminal activities in the future.

See above – the EU ETS is mired in fraud.

High standards of security and a range of anti-fraud measures are being applied to Australian emissions registries. For example, Australia’s Kyoto Protocol registry complies with IT security standards set by the Defence Signals Directorate and the United Nations. Australia’s registry systems have remained safe from cyber attacks.

Big deal.

It is all very well for Bishop to tell the electorate what she doesn’t like. What she and the Opposition need to tell everyone is what they actually propose to do to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution at the lowest cost.

A fizzle-out ending for a fizzle-out article, full of half-truths and misrepresentations. If this is the best that our minister for climate change can come up with, it shows a total lack of any grip on reality. What the Opposition should do is say we will do nothing to mitigate climate change, because it is money down the drain, but we will spend where necessary to adapt, at far less cost.

Even Bjørn Lomborg, the non-sceptic’s sceptic, who believes in the reality of man-made climate change, thinks that carbon taxes are the worst way to deal with climate change:

“The current solution is to make fossil fuels so expensive that nobody will want them,” Dr Lomborg said, adding that this is “economically inefficient and politically impossible”. (source)

And finally, it’s “carbon dioxide”, Greg, not carbon pollution.

The article source is here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Carbon tax goes up in smoke

11 March, 2011 by

Julia's carbon tax?

That’s according to Dennis Shanahan in The Australian this morning:

LET’S hope for Labor’s sake Julia Gillard has a plan B for handling the introduction of a fixed carbon price because plan A has gone to hell in a hand basket.

Labor’s plans to introduce a carbon price from next July are in free fall, and the government is losing the political debate dreadfully. Its messages are confused, the tone is totally negative and the only certainty for business is an early start date it doesn’t want.

Apart from the date there’s no other detail. The Greens continue to appear to control the agenda; Labor is losing support to both the Coalition and the Greens and most importantly six years of public goodwill over fighting global warming has been lost.

Publicly Labor is clinging to delusional claims of success and hoping a relentless campaign against Tony Abbott for being a negative wrecker will turn the politics back to the government.

There are real misgivings about the timing and presentation of the carbon tax, and fears that when Kristina Keneally, who has embraced it in the NSW election, is thumped at the polls she can claim it was made worse by Gillard’s tax.

A disastrous Newspoll this week, showing Labor’s primary vote at a record low of 30 per cent and a reversal since December of popular support to 53 per cent against and 42 per cent for a carbon price to combat global warming by pushing up energy prices, is making Labor MPs even more nervous.

Labor’s defence that it’s damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t present detail on a new tax because of the damaging experience of the failed resources super profits tax is a spurious argument. It ignores that there is a perfect template for introducing a new tax: the Petroleum Resources Rent Tax of the Hawke era.

Analogies with John Howard’s strategy on the introduction of the GST are equally spurious and are about ministers reassuring backbenchers that a government can recover from a record low primary vote and win the next election. (source)

In other carbon tax news, grocery association chief states the obvious – prices at the supermarket will go up if electricity prices go up. Colour me amazed:

INDEPENDENT grocers are warning that prices in their stores will have to rise if Julia Gillard’s carbon pricing plan pushes up the cost of electricity.

John Cummings, chairman of the National Association of Retail Grocers of Australia, said based on a $26-a-tonne carbon price, independent supermarket operators could face extra electricity charges of between $500 and $1000 a week.

Mr Cummings said the extra charges would be passed on to consumers through higher prices because the industry operated on low margins and had no capacity to absorb the higher costs. (source)

And former NSW Labor premier Nathan Rees has joined the party dissing the tax:

FORMER NSW premier Nathan Rees has exposed a rift between Julia Gillard and the NSW Right over a carbon price, saying the proposed tax was crippling Labor in the lead-up to this month’s state election.

In an exclusive interview with The Australian, Mr Rees, who is in danger of losing his seat of Toongabbie in the traditional Labor heartland of Sydney’s western suburbs, said there was “no question at all” the Prime Minister’s proposed carbon tax was hurting NSW Labor in the polls.

“I’ve never seen an issue sink in so quickly,” Mr Rees told The Australian.

“Julia announced it on the Thursday and by the time I was door-knocking on the Saturday every second person was talking about it.” (source)

All the while, the Fairfax press and the ABC have their fingers in their ears shouting “la, la, la” and are pumping Garnaut’s latest nonsense for all its worth.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Economist lectures us on climatology

10 March, 2011 by

He's an economist, OK?

But that’s OK. Nobody cares about his qualifications because he’s a warmist – like Flannery. Contrast the case of a sceptic, when their qualifications and authority to speak would be rummaged through like an old suitcase. Of course, it’s our old friend Ross Garnaut, who needs sadly little introduction, and lectures us again on the “climate crisis” and rising temperatures and rising sea levels – all “worse than we thought”, according to his great climatological authority:

GLOBAL warming may push sea levels rises to the upper limit of current projections and temperatures above previously anticipated levels, Julia Gillard’s top climate change adviser has warned.

Ross Garnaut today issued a pessimistic assessment of likely climate change effects, suggesting recent updates to climate science showed previous research may have underestimated the effects of increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Professor Garnaut flagged the “awful reality” that global political leaders may have to go further than the emissions reduction targets they have been aiming for in international negotiations. [Great timing when the carbon tax is on all the front pages. If you were cynical you might almost think it was planned – Ed]

These targets aim for a concentration of carbon dioxide equivalent of 450 parts per million, which would limit temperature increases to 2 degrees celsius. [Just like that. The earth’s climate system has but one dial, marked CO2 – we twiddle it and the earth responds, like a cheap electric fire – Ed]

“There is a case in managing the risks of climate change for seeking to reduce emissions concentrations below 450ppm carbon dioxide equivalent,” Professor Garnaut said. (source)

Nice try to prop up Gillard’s pointless carbon tax, but no dice, mate.

Why, oh why does The Australian publish this crap? Can you imagine the howls of derision that would come from the warm-monger camp if an economist claimed that AGW was a crock? But with Garnaut, it’s all hushed respect. Give me a break. Nobody with a brain should give a flying fig what Garnaut thinks.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Carbon tax is a disaster

10 March, 2011 by

Pointless and ineffective, and so is the tax

Another great read by Miranda Devine, who points out that it is Malcolm Turnbull, the only significant supporter of an ETS in the Coalition and “Labor’s best asset” who is secretly plotting with the independents to try and regain some relevance:

The Government has missed the point. Instead of slugging us for fossil fuels, it should provide green energy that is cheap to use.

IF you ever wondered who is advising Tony Windsor to support a carbon tax, well, now you know: moles within the Coalition, the kamikaze ever-shrinking pro-carbon tax faction, aka Team Turnbull.

Windsor is keeping their identities secret, but he says, “A lot of people within the Coalition would like to engage in that work (pricing carbon). They’ve been ruled out by the opportunism of Tony Abbott, but that doesn’t mean they can’t speak to others,” he told ABC radio yesterday.

Ah ha! So that’s why Malcolm Turnbull was having a deep and meaningful conversation over dinner in Canberra with that other ruminating country independent, Rob Oakeshott, last week.

Colleagues describe Turnbull as “Labor’s best asset”, sourly noting the flurry of meetings he has been conducting in an effort to revive his leadership prospects. They wonder whether he will again cross the floor to vote with Labor on its carbon tax.

Yet the self-destructing futility of his bid is laid bare in this week’s Newspoll, which shows Labor’s carbon plans are electoral poison, opposed by the majority of voters but most particularly by Coalition voters, whose aversion has grown to 72 per cent.

Windsor, whose conservative electorate is seething with anger over his role in bringing Labor to power and his apparent complicity in the carbon tax announcement, may have had his spine stiffened by Coalition rats.

But he still has been backpedalling at a million miles an hour since Labor recorded its lowest ever primary support in Newspoll, showing what a blunder the carbon tax is.

Now he’s trying to distance himself from Prime Minister Julia Gillard by saying she had “sort of jumped the gun” and should have given more “detail” about the tax before announcing it.

But it is not the missing detail that is the problem; it is the tax itself, as Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg points out. On Tuesday night, Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, outlined the flaws with the Government’s approach.

The least effective, most expensive solution to climate change is any sort of tax on carbon dioxide, he says. “For every dollar you spend, you save a couple of cents in climate damage.” And that money wasted today means you are less well placed to deal with any potential ill-effects of climate change in the future.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

If the AGW case is so strong, why delete emails?

9 March, 2011 by

Mann made warming

Despite a stack of whitewash enquiries intended to sweep the whole embarrassing episode under the carpet, Climategate just won’t go away. Watts Up With That is reporting that Eugene Wahl, physical scientist in the NOAA Paleoclimatology program at NOAA, has been quizzed by investigators and has admitted to deleting emails on the instructions of Michael Mann:

Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails. Wahl has also informed the inspector that he did delete emails as the result of this request.

There are times during the course of Climategate when you feel like you are in a Twilight Zone episode, especially the kind where the ambiguous meaning of terms plays a critical role, like “To Serve Man” [link to YouTube clip].

That episode is apt because of the central role trust plays and because of the role puzzle solvers play  in uncovering that the do-gooder aliens cannot be trusted. “Serving”, of course, has now taken on new meanings, as in “you got served” or pwned. With the release of the news that Mann successfully instructed Wahl to delete emails,  it’s clear that Mann got served or pwned by Wahl; but more importantly, he got served or assisted by Dr. Pell, Dr. Scaroni, Dr Brune, and Dr. Foley. Who are they? They are the Penn State team who served Dr. Mann by purporting to exonerate him in the Penn State inquiry, despite Mann’s own non-responsive response to a key question being on its face evasive, and begging followup questions. Regardless, Mann’s non-answer did not even purport to support their conclusion about his actions. In short, they covered for him.

So we have to ask again. Why is skulduggery like this required if the case for AGW is so strong?

Read it here.

UPDATE: Chris Horner, writing at the Daily Caller, summarises the trick admirably:

PSU [Penn State University]: This is potentially very grave. We must know: Did you do A or B?

Mann: I did not do A.

PSU: Ah. There we go. It appears there is no evidence he did A or B.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Andrew Bolt: Gillard is finished

9 March, 2011 by

Andrew Bolt

Andrew’s column summarises the disastrous position Gillard finds herself in after her “carbon tax lie”. But I particularly liked the Seven Steps for Destroying Credibility:

STEP ONE: pretend you haven’t broken your word.

In Gillard’s initial announcement she did not even mention she’d ditched her promise.

Later, as public anger started to build, she pretended she was actually honouring it: “Before the last election I consistently said we needed to price carbon . . . What are we doing? We’re pricing carbon.”

STEP TWO: use lying language.

Gillard still calls her tax a “price on carbon” when it’s no such thing. She says “price” to avoid using the nasty “tax” word, and says “carbon” to make you think it’s imposed on sooty black stuff and not carbon dioxide.

STEP THREE: pretend your tax will make us richer, not poorer.

Gillard first presented her tax as the kind of invention that made computer pioneer Bill Gates a multi-billionaire.

“Bill Gates understood the need to be in on the change. The same is true now. This is the time to be pricing carbon.”

STEP FOUR: smear those who disagree.

Under attack in Parliament over her lie, Gillard resorted to abuse, accusing the Opposition of “race-baiting” and later warning it could even inspire dangerous extremists.

STEP FIVE: deny your tax is a tax.

Gillard at first did admit her “carbon price” was a tax, but by last Sunday Swan was so rattled that he pretended it wasn’t: “But it doesn’t operate like a traditional tax . . . It is not the case that the Government is going to take the carbon price out of your pay packet.”

Which must mean the goods and services tax isn’t a real tax, either, since it’s just a tax on everything you buy, just like this carbon dioxide tax.

STEP SIX: deny your tax is going to hurt like you once said.

At first Gillard conceded her tax would hurt (by making coal-fired electricity and petrol more expensive).

“It has price impacts. It’s meant to. That’s the whole point.”

Even two weeks ago, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet suggested ways to avoid this pain. “The main way to do that is by saving energy, to turn things off at the wall. Maybe think about how often you use the airconditioner. Using a cheaper-to-run hot water system.”

But now? With this tax turning into a debacle, Combet is denouncing what he himself once confessed:

ABC interviewer: Tony Abbott is . . . pointing out the carbon tax in his words would transform Australia’s way of life by making it harder for Australians to drive or turn on the airconditioner.

Combet: . . . What garbage . . . I mean, this guy, he really is nothing but a mobile scare campaign.

STEP SEVEN: don’t ever admit your tax won’t do a thing to stop global warming.

Here’s Swan with Oakes.

Oakes: I’m getting this question from a lot of people . . . ‘Tell me just how much the temperature is going to drop by if this stupid tax comes into effect?’

Swan: Well, Laurie, this is a long-term problem, and the longer we delay . . .

And blah blah. Honest answer? Zero.

Read it all.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Shock: Taxpayer-funded ad campaign for Julia's carbon lie?

8 March, 2011 by

PM raises the spectre of an even bigger kick in the public's teeth

The indoctrination isn’t working. We have to increase the dosage. The indoctrination isn’t working. We have to increase the dosage… Where’s Penny Wong when you need her? Unfortunately, the Australian public are too smart for your nonsensical climate policies, Julia and Greg, as evidenced by the disastrous poll slump earlier today.

But hey, like I said, it’s got nothing to do with the policy being a crock of s#!t, it’s just that we’re not getting the message across properly. So we’ll waste even more of your taxpayer dollars with a pointless and, almost certainly, deeply irritating, advertising campaign. Seriously, it just gets worse. From ABC’s PM programme:

ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Government isn’t ruling out a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign. Julia Gillard’s reinforced the message on 7.30:

JULIA GILLARD: On Government advertising – from time to time we advertise to get necessary information to people, so I’m not going to rule in or rule out government advertising in the future.

PRESENTER: But it’s possible?

ALEXANDRA KIRK: PM has been told there’s a $30 million pool of funds for advertising that was never spent because of the demise of Kevin Rudd’s carbon pollution reduction scheme.

But an ad campaign before any carbon tax legislation’s introduced into parliament would leave the Government open to a barrage of criticism.

Government MPs are worried by today’s poll showing Labor eight points behind the Coalition after preferences. And they’re worried by the prospect of months more campaigning from Tony Abbott before the Government reveals the rate of the carbon tax and compensation to households and businesses.

Martin O’Shannessy says it all boils down to one thing.

MARTIN O’SHANNESSY: It’s certainly played out as a broken election promise that has left Julia Gillard taking opposite positions either side of an election.

It’s more damaging for her because if you like the license to lead us into the tough place of doing something about climate change and make no mistake, I believe that people do want to do something about climate change judging by the polling we’ve done [really? – Ed] But the license to lead us into that place is a bit of a, to mix metaphors, a double-edged sword.

A lot of optimism in Kevin Rudd, which obviously was dashed through the late 2009 and 2010 with Copenhagen being talked down and the CPRS going onto the backburner and that played out very badly for Kevin Rudd, there were other things going but these obviously important things.

It appears that Julia Gillard has disappointed in the other direction on this and people are punishing her for it. It’s a very sensitive issue that if you like amplifies their reactions. (source)

Can you imagine the voter anger at a taxpayer funded campaign for a policy that was expressly ruled out before the election? It really doesn’t bear thinking about… actually, Julia, go ahead and do it. It would finish you and your government off good and proper.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Excellent: Gillard to "push ahead with carbon price"

8 March, 2011 by

The socialist and the Marxist, or is it the other way round? Whatever…

Great news. I think we can reasonably confidently say: RIP Julia. You will go the way of Rudd, and Labor will be consigned to electoral oblivion for a generation:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard is determined to fight on with her controversial carbon tax, despite a new poll showing Labor’s primary vote has hit rock-bottom.

Labor’s primary vote plunged to 30 per cent in the latest Newspoll, with the Coalition leading 54 to 46 per cent in two-party terms.

Ms Gillard told reporters in Washington she had always understood arguing for a tough economic reform such as pricing carbon was “going to be a big debate”.

“It’s going to be a hard debate – but it’s one that I am determined to win,” she said.

Not a chance now, I’m afraid. You’re sunk. And then another big misrepresentation:

“We shouldn’t try to lead the world, but neither can we afford to limp behind. We have a high emissions economy.”

What she means (but cleverly doesn’t say to fool those listening) is that we have a high per capita emissions, because we have so many emissions-intensive industries in our economy and a relatively small population – inevitably therefore, our emissions are high per capita. But we only produce less than 1.5% of the total, which is not enough for the climate to even notice. So a carbon tax and any reduction in emissions that we make here in Australia, are <shouts>UTTERLY POINTLESS GESTURES</shouts>.

And don’t, DON’T, whatever you do click the link. It’s a nauseous arse-lick piece by Fairfax’s Michelle Grattan full of sick-making photos of Julia with Obama, and a frankly horrific video which plays whether you want it to or not – highlight is Julia blaming Abbott (or Mr Rabbit, as she calls him – elocution was never her strong point) for her poll slide – priceless.

LINK – you have been warned.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Newspoll: Labor plummets

8 March, 2011 by

Disaster for Labor (Blue: Coalition/Abbott, Red: Labor/Gillard, Grey: uncommitted

In the first NewsPoll since the announcement of the carbon tax, Labor’s standing in the polls, and that of leader Julia Gillard, has dropped like a stone:

JULIA Gillard’s carbon tax plan has reversed public support for action on global warming, damaged her leadership and delivered Labor its lowest primary support on record.

Tony Abbott is now the closest he has been to Ms Gillard as preferred prime minister.

And, as satisfaction with the Prime Minister slumps just nine months after she agreed to challenge Kevin Rudd, she remains behind the Foreign Minister as the preferred Labor leader.

In just two weeks, Ms Gillard’s personal support has gone from its best since she became Prime Minister in June last year to her worst. It is now the same as Mr Rudd’s failing personal support when he began campaigning for the mining tax in May last year.

Since Ms Gillard announced her intention to introduce a carbon tax from July next year, overall positive public support for action on global warming, even if it meant rising prices for electricity and petrol, has turned negative. A majority of people, or 53 per cent, are now against Labor’s plan, with 42 per cent in favour.

According to the latest Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, Labor’s primary vote crashed six percentage points to just 30 per cent, the lowest primary vote in Newspoll survey history. Previously, the lowest primary vote was 31 per cent, in 1993, when Paul Keating was prime minister and Australia was in recession.

The Coalition’s primary vote, after falling sharply two weeks ago because of internal divisions, bounced back to 45 per cent. This is the Coalition’s highest primary vote since March 2006, when John Howard was prime minister and nine months before Kim Beazley was replaced by Mr Rudd as opposition leader. (source)

The Australian people do not like being lied to. Whether you support action on climate or not, Gillards backflip, breaking her promise not to implement a carbon tax under “any government I lead”, has irked the electorate and could spell disaster for Labor. Dennis Shanahan:

JULIA Gillard’s decision to announce her plan for a carbon tax from July 1 next year could be the political game-changer for her leadership, the Labor government and, most importantly, the future of climate change action in Australia.

Every possible element to drive down the standing of the Prime Minister, her government and the climate change debate has combined in such a way that the political and social divisions in Australia that have been evolving for years have become palpable and public.

Labor has lost its licence to campaign on climate change, a hard-won goodwill it had towards fighting global warming and a preparedness of consumers to pay, which was the fundamental underpinning of any political campaign to sell a new tax and raise prices.

The extent to which all the fault lines within Labor become entrenched – between the stereotypical inner-city lefties and the suburban conservatives, between young and old and those prepared or able to pay the cost of trying to arrest global warming – will decide the government’s fate. (source)

And also worth a read is Tony Abbott’s comments on climate in Adelaide:

TONY Abbott has declared Julia Gillard wants to change Australia’s way of life by introducing a price on carbon that would make it harder for people to turn on their airconditioners or to drive their cars.

In a speech in Adelaide last night, the Opposition Leader said the carbon tax would be the “big issue” of the next election campaign, regardless of when it was held.

Seizing the opportunity to intensify his attack while the Prime Minister is on her trip to the US, Mr Abbott said: “If this is to be more than just a hit on people’s cost of living, it must utterly transform the way we live and how we work.”

Mr Abbott said, given people’s propensity to use their airconditioners and to drive their cars, “if a carbon tax is to reduce electricity use and car use it will have to raise the price of daily life very considerably indeed”. (source)

Interesting times.

UPDATE: Hilarious to see ABC and Fairfax try to avoid this completely, both leading with “Obama ♥ Gillard” stories… pass the sick bag. On second thoughts, shouldn’t it be Bob Brown visiting the US? He is the PM after all…

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