Fair play at the Joint Select Committee?

11 October, 2011 by

Level playing field?

A number of commentators have reported that the number of submissions sent to the Joint Select Committee (JSC)  far exceeds the number published. Figures of 4,500 public submissions have been floating around the blogosphere for a while, but it is clear from the JSC’s web site that only 73 have been published. What happened to the other 4,427?

Some confusion has arisen because there were in fact two submission processes taking place almost simultaneously, one organised by the Department of Climate Change (DCC), and another by the JSC. The DCC was very happy to allow multiple standard form letters supporting the tax (see here), probably spoon-fed by GetUp! and Say Yes, but it is very possible that less strict rules were in place for that process.

However, the DCC states that only 326 submissions were “received”, so at this stage we must assume the majority were communicated to the JSC.

An article in Quadrant shows evidence of bias against those opposing the bills, taking examples from both the JSC and the DCC:

The Department of Climate Change published this:

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express my support for the Government to legislate to put a price on Carbon. I urge the government to continue to move ahead with the Carbon tax.

Rob Feith

The Department of Climate Change published this:

To Whom It May Concern

Even with all the confusion surrounding the Carbon Tax, I would like to support the move the Government is making. In order to reduce our Carbon Pollution you have to place a monetary value on the air we breathe. I hope this is a step in the right direction and, I hope the Government sets a model and digs their heels in to become a world leader in this arena.

My support is with the Government at present.

 Kerrie Chandler

The Select Committee did not publish this:

Submission on theClean Energy Bill 2011

To the: Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future

By: Peter Smith

Opening Comment and Summary View

My submission is as a private citizen of Australia. I am basing my submission on the “Explanatory Memorandum” (“EM”) to the Clean Energy Bill (“the Bill”) and on media reports of the contents and implication of various parts of the Bill. I have neither the time nor resources to study and consider all of the constituent parts of the Bill in detail.

I note that the time given for considering the Bill and providing a submission is extremely short given its complexity and import. It is not clear why the Government has allowed so little time for the public to consider a piece of legislation which is described as a “major reform” and which is designed to have far-reaching effects.

Though it does not reflect on the Bill per se, the political process surrounding its introduction is disquieting. The Government went to the election only a little over 12 months ago with an explicit undertaking by the Prime Minister “to develop a Citizens’ Assembly to examine climate change over 12 months, the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a market-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions”. She went on to link any action with the views of the group comprising the Assembly: “if I am wrong, and that group of Australians is not persuaded of the case for change then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded as deeply as required about the need for transformational change”.

Making a transformational change – one so hard to unpick – contrary to the PM’s undertaking, brings our political processes into disrepute and calls into question the trust we should have in our democratic processes. To be clear, election promises are not always kept; that is not the issue. The issue arises from the circumstances of the about-face and its dimensions. The Bill is making changes of great moment and effective permanency under no pressure of circumstances, contrary to a clear and explicit commitment which may have been instrumental in winning a very narrow election. I doubt whether a similar instance could be found in Australia’s past.

My conclusion is that whatever its merits, the Bill should be withdrawn because of the process surrounding its introduction. My quite separate conclusion, based on my comments set out below, is that the Bill will damage Australia, for no measurable gain, and should be withdrawn also on that account.

[Editors note: this particular submission elaborates further, and is cogently argued – see original post here]

If these allegations of suppression of dissent are correct, it is a disgraceful affront to open democracy, of which Labor (as the sponsors of the Clean Energy bills) should be thoroughly ashamed. Therefore, in order to try to get to the bottom of this important story, I have today filed a request with the Clerk Assistant (Committees) at Parliament House in the following terms, to establish the proportion of submissions received that were rejected:

Please would you provide, by return of email, the following information regarding the communications received by the above Committee:
  1. Total number of communications received by the Committee (whether classified as formal submissions by the Committee or otherwise).
  2. Number of communications received by the Committee (whether classified as formal submissions by the Committee or otherwise) SUPPORTIVE of the Government’s Clean Energy legislation.
  3. Number of communications received by the Committee (whether classified as formal submissions by the Committee or otherwise) OPPOSING the Government’s Clean Energy legislation.
  4. Number of communications from question (2) above rejected for publication by the Committee (for whatever reason).
  5. Number of communications from question (3) above rejected for publication by the Committee (for whatever reason).

I will report any response I receive, although I won’t be holding my breath.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Global climate action a distant dream as Kyoto crumbles

11 October, 2011 by

No hope

What is the government’s carbon tax modelling based upon? Global trading of emissions by 2016 (see here). What is the chance of that? Zero.

Not only is Kyoto about to fall apart, but the divisions between developed and developing countries as to who should bear the greatest burden of emissions cuts are as wide and unbridgeable as ever:

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres lauded a climate change meeting in Panama as “good progress” this weekend, even as environmental activists warned that the world’s only structure for curbing greenhouse gas emissions appears about to crumble.

The next time diplomats meet, it will be in Durban, South Africa, in December for the year’s final climate change summit. There, countries must finally decide what they have put off for several years: the future of the Kyoto Protocol.

“South Africa is the tipping point in terms of the future of the climate regime,” said Tasneem Essop, international climate policy advocate for the World Wildlife Fund in South Africa. [Just like Copenhagen and Cancun were both the “last chance” for a deal – Ed]

The 1997 treaty requires carbon emission cuts from industrialized countries, and the first phase of the agreement ends in 2012. Developing countries are adamant that a second commitment period is non-negotiable. Moreover, they insist any follow-up should closely hew to the original agreement: Wealthy countries must agree unilaterally to cut steeper emissions, and poorer ones would cut carbon voluntarily after financial assistance from the rich. (source)

The fragility of the global negotiations on climate change only make Labor’s pointless carbon tax seem all the more ridiculous.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Carbon tax to cost Australians $1 trillion by 2050

7 October, 2011 by

Labor's carbon tax

And for what benefit to the climate? Zero.

The federal government’s carbon tax will cost every Australian $40,000 in the period to 2050 and a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted before it passes into law, an opposition-dominated Senate committee says.

The select committee on the scrutiny of new taxes on Friday tabled a 361-page report in parliament looking at whether a carbon tax should be brought in at a time of uncertainty about the global economy and whether there will be a concerted international effort to cut carbon emissions.

Labor’s laws to establish in a fixed $23-per-tonne carbon price from July 1, 2012, before moving to an emissions trading scheme in 2015, are set to pass the lower house next Wednesday before going to the Senate for debate.

The committee found that under the government’s own modelling the carbon tax would impose a $1 trillion cost on the Australian economy, or $40,000 per person.

“This is likely to be an underestimate given that Treasury’s modelling relies on the assumption that other countries will act in concert with Australia to reduce emissions,” its report said.

“The government has provided no evidence that its policy provides benefits commensurate with these costs.

“Indeed, without global action, a carbon tax in Australia cannot do anything to mitigate the effects of climate change.

“A carbon tax will be all economic pain for no environmental gain.” (source)

Once again, Labor’s climate policy is pure, undiluted madness.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Coalition will force double dissolution on carbon tax

3 October, 2011 by

Greg Hunt

As we would expect, the Coalition will not allow the undemocratic “poison pill” tactics of Labor to stand in the way of its right to repeal the carbon tax legislation if (when) in government:

THE Coalition will go to a double dissolution election if it wins government and Labor baulks at repealing the carbon tax and its associated compensation, opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt says.

But Mr Hunt has declared he expects Labor to eventually support the Coalition’s push to unravel the Gillard government’s climate change policy, if it loses the next federal poll.

Speaking on Sky News’s Australian Agenda yesterday, Mr Hunt said doing otherwise would be “an act of almost breathtaking democratic arrogance”. Indicating the opposition had been busy behind the scenes building its election policy platform, Mr Hunt said he had been up till 5am one night last week trawling through previous years’ budget papers for viable savings.

The Coalition has confirmed it is looking for savings of about $70 billion to fund its policies.

“We are preparing for an election at any possible time, so we are ready to go in case the instability in government translates to an election,” he said.

“If there is more time, we can do more work. But we are ready for an election because we believe this government is unstable.” (source)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Treasury modelling assumes global emissions trading by 2016

26 September, 2011 by

Dodgy modelling

We have always suspected the Treasury modelling of the impact of the carbon price was a crock, and now we have been proved substantially right, with the Treasuring admitting as much. Not only that, but a “finding” that carbon pricing would not increase unemployment was actually an “assumption” in its modelling. Astonishing!

THE Treasury has admitted that in modelling the cost of the government’s price on carbon it assumed countries would trade emissions after 2016 despite the fact there is no indication major emitters such the US and China will do so.

A senior Treasury official previously told a Senate select committee she did not assume countries would engage in emissions trading.

But critics such as economist Henry Ergas pointed out that Treasury had claimed in its modelling there would be a global price for carbon by 2016 and said the only way this could happen was if major countries were trading emissions.

At a Senate committee meeting on August 10, Treasury macroeconomic modelling manager Meghan Quinn said: “What we are assuming is there are mechanisms in countries to achieve emissions that result in an implicit or explicit carbon price based on those economies. It does not mean it specifically has to be an emissions trading scheme.”

The Treasury has now written to Professor Ergas conceding that the modelling undertaken in the Strong Growth Low Pollution report assumes “countries allow individual firms or governments to trade abatement with firms/governments in other countries through some mechanism”.

It says “some such mechanisms are currently in place under the UNFCCC framework”. All schemes under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change involve emissions trading or claiming a credit for emissions reductions.

Professor Ergas said: “They swore they were not assuming the US had an ETS. It turns out they were assuming the US had no emissions trading but some way of trading emissions. But they don’t tell us what that mechanism is or how it will come into place any time soon.”

The Treasury also admitted its finding that pricing carbon emissions would not increase unemployment was an assumption in its modelling. (source)

Henry Ergas responds in detail in an opinion piece entitled Lies, Deception and the Carbon tax. Read it all.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Climate Spin of the Week: Mark Dreyfus

22 September, 2011 by

Spin cycle…

Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Mark Dreyfus huffs and puffs in The Australian today, having been found out by Henry Ergas last week of planting poison pills in the carbon tax legislation. Dreyfus attempts to explain it all away by citing “certainty” – i.e. it’s certain that we’ll be screwed under this legislation.

But the most shockingly misrepresentative statements in his article must be the following:

Ergas refers to carbon pricing in Australia as “unilateral action” and claims it will undermine our international competitiveness. This ignores the fact 89 countries, accounting for more than 80 per cent of global emissions and more than 90 per cent of the global economy, have pledged to reduce or limit emissions by 2020 under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Could you be any more economical with the truth? Dreyfus’ statement is utter nonsense. The Copenhagen accord is non-binding and is barely worth the paper it is printed on, so to say they have “pledged” is simply weasel words for talking big to get a shaky agreement. The US, China and India (which make up nearly 50% of emissions globally) are doing NOTHING. Yeah, maybe China is making the right noises about cutting carbon intensity, but absolute emissions will continue to rise for decades. Ditto India. And the US is more worried about GFC Mk II than tackling climate change. The claims made by Dreyfus just don’t hold up.

Secondly, Dreyfus inflates the importance of existing trading schemes:

Key economies are already constraining emissions or emissions growth. Emissions trading schemes have operated for years in 31 European countries, New Zealand and in 10 US states.

New Zealand emits precisely square root of sod all. The “10” states in the RGGI (actually only eight since New Hampshire and New Jersey announced they were pulling out) make up a tiny token gesture. The EU ETS is in the process of helping to reduce the European economy to rubble. What a great act to follow!

And the Parliamentary Secretary really must check his facts:

California, the world’s eighth largest economy in its own right, will launch its ETS next year.

Wrong. The moonbat state has delayed it until 2013, which isn’t “next year”. Duh.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Coalition to demolish carbon tax

19 September, 2011 by

The Coalition's plan

There is currently a flurry of activity to beat the deadline for written submissions from members of the public to the Joint Select Committee on the proposed carbon tax. But in all honesty, why bother? Why does anyone think that a government that is hell bent on introducing this tax at any price will take any notice of what the public think? The whole exercise, like everything else to do with the carbon tax, is a sham which will make no difference whatsoever. Have they listened before? No. Are they listening now? No.

Save your ink and the postage (or your fingers and a few KB of data sending an email). There are only two ways that this tax will be defeated: (a) some Labor MPs with a conscience vote it down; or (b) we wait for an incoming Coalition government to repeal it. Option (a) won’t work because, there aren’t any Labor politicians with a conscience (and even if there were, they would be prohibited from voting against the party anyway), so we’re left with option (b), which fortunately looks more and more likely:

THE Coalition will today sink Julia Gillard’s plan to send asylum-seekers to Malaysia and has vowed it will purge all elements of Labor’s mining and carbon taxes when it wins the next election.

In an escalation of the Coalition’s policy rhetoric, Joe Hockey has warned householders and businesses that any compensation they receive from the government over next July’s introduction of the carbon tax will be taken back by an incoming Coalition government as part of a push to improve the government’s budget position.

The opposition Treasury spokesman has also vowed to amend Labor’s industrial relations laws to deliver “worker mobility”, re-emphasised the Coalition’s promise to demolish Labor’s mineral resources rent tax and rejected the use of its proposed parliamentary budget office. (source)

In other words, any last trace of this appalling government will be airbrushed out of history. Good.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Gillard seeks to entrench carbon tax laws

17 September, 2011 by

Not sovereign?

There is a general principle in constitutional law that the “sovereignty” of Parliament ensures that a future parliament cannot be bound by its predecessor. In other words, if a parliament enacts a law, then a subsequent parliament should be entitled to repeal it. However, two articles in The Australian have demonstrated that the Gillard government is trying very hard to breach this principle, and entrench the carbon tax legislation in the statute book.

Firstly, Henry Ergas, writing yesterday commented:

IT was Mark Dreyfus QC, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, who let the cat out of the bag.

Once the carbon change legislation is in place, he said, repeal would amount to an acquisition of property by the commonwealth, as holders of emissions permits would be deprived of a valuable asset. As a result, the commonwealth would be liable, under s.51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution, to pay compensation, potentially in the billions of dollars. A future government would therefore find repeal prohibitively costly.

That consequence is anything but unintended. The clean energy legislation, released this week, specifically provides that “a carbon unit (its generic term for a right to emit) is personal property”.

This, the government says, is needed to give certainty to long-term trades. But that claim makes little sense, for even without such protections there are flourishing markets for fishing quotas and other tradeable entitlements.

And internationally, governments have generally ensured pollution permits are not treated as conventional property rights, precisely so as to be able to revise environmental controls as circumstances change. Rather, this provision serves one purpose only: to guarantee any attempt at repeal triggers constitutional requirements to pay compensation, shackling future governments.

Nor is it the only poison pill built into the legislation. Also crucial is what happens if a new government rejects the emissions reductions recommendations made by the carbon regulator, the Climate Change Authority.

In that event, unless the government can secure a majority for an alternative target, permitted emissions are automatically cut by up to 10 per cent in a single year, crippling economic activity.

A Coalition government, or even a Labor government less wedded to the Greens, would therefore find itself trapped. (source)

And Paul Kelly, writing today, also considers the problem of repeal:

As incoming PM, Abbott would find himself having to check and reverse one of the deepest policy convictions in the senior ranks of the public service: that carbon pricing is far superior to his own direct action agenda.

Beyond that, he would need to replace an economy-wide scheme that priced carbon, treated emission permits as a property right, granted tax cuts and transfer payments as compensation and created an elaborate new structure of governance with a Clean Energy Regulator, a Climate Change Authority and a Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Comparisons with Work Choices are false. Acting on its 2007 mandate, the Rudd government with Gillard as relevant minister replaced Howard’s laws with the Fair Work Act. But dismantling Labor’s clean energy structure is a far more formidable task. It penetrates to issues that will alarm business, face possible rejection in the Senate and could finish in the High Court. Gillard’s purpose is to entrench the new system and create a new status quo.

Labor’s scheme is one of the most elaborate in the world. The initial price of $23 a tonne from July 2012 will be fixed rising at 2.5 per cent per annum in real terms. From July 2015 it will transition to a flexible price estimated at $29 a tonne en route to an 80 per cent emissions reduction target by 2050. The coverage will be wide, reaching two-thirds of Australia’s emissions.

Upwards of 500 of the biggest polluters must pay for each tonne of carbon pollution they release. The flexible price means our scheme will be linked with other carbon markets. The heart of the policy is that companies can take action at home or purchase an international unit, thereby reducing carbon pollution abroad. This recognises that climate change is a global phenomenon and ensures domestic action occurs at the lowest cost.

The opposition is fixated on winning the political battle and how to unscramble the scheme in office. It has legal advice suggesting the issue may end in the High Court. The question is whether an Abbott government would be liable to compensation for removing property rights that were created only by this legislation. It is, unsurprisingly, a grey area.

“This is an attempt to sabotage the democratic process,” shadow finance minister Andrew Robb told The Australian yesterday. “We won’t be intimidated and we won’t be bullied. We will repeal this. If we have to return to the people at another election then we will.” (source)

It should come as little surprise that a government that has no mandate for the policy and treats the electorate with contempt takes such a cavalier attitude to constitutional norms of our democracy. This is a government hell bent on getting its way, and making sure that the Coalition are hamstrung if (when) they are elected in 2013 or sooner.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Abbott: Carbon tax "the longest political suicide note in history"

14 September, 2011 by

Tony Abbott responds to Julia Gillard’s introduction of the carbon tax bills to Parliament:

Let’s be absolutely blunt about the bills now before the parliament: this is a bad tax based on a lie and it should be rejected by this parliament.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that the question for members of this parliament was are you or are you not on the right side of history? Well, let me say, Mr Speaker, this is arrogant presumption by a Prime Minister who is on the wrong side of truth. That’s the Prime Minister’s problem. She is on the wrong side of truth when it comes to this issue.

…

I say to this Prime Minister there should be no new tax collection without an election. That’s what this Prime Minister should do. If this Prime Minister trusts in the democratic process, if this Prime Minister trusts her own judgement, trusts her own argument, that is what she should be doing. She should be taking this to the people.

Mr Speaker, the whole point of this tax is to change the way every single Australian lives and works. That’s another reason why this should be taken to the people. This is not just a minor bit of financial engineering. This is not just – if you believe the Government – something to do with the revenue. This is a transformational change. This is something which is supposed to impact on our country, not just today, not just next year, not just next decade but forever. That’s how important this is, if the Government is to be believed, and this is why it should go to the people first.

This tax is all about making the essentials of modern life more expensive. Modern life, Mr Speaker, is utterly inconceivable without fuel and power, without fuel to move us around the country, without power to make our homes, our businesses and our factories work. So, if this tax comes in, as the Government wants it to come in, we won’t be able to turn on our air conditioner or our heater without being impacted by this tax. We won’t be able to get on a bus or a train, ultimately to drive our cars, without being impacted by this tax. That’s how important, that’s how significant this tax is. This explains the obvious impact that this tax will have on every single Australian’s cost of living. This explains the obvious impact that this tax will have on every single Australian’s job and this explains why it is so necessary for this tax to go to the people before the parliament tries to deal with it. Mr Speaker, if this parliament is to have any democratic credibility on an issue like this there must be an appeal to the people before a decision by the parliament.

…

So, all of those bold claims in the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, all of that big chest-thumping talk of a massive reduction in emissions as a result of this tax, utterly wrong, utterly wrong and disproven on the basis of the Government’s own documents. We aren’t reducing our emissions, we are just engaging in a massive transfer of wealth from this country to carbon traders overseas. That’s what’s happening. That’s what’s happening under this tax. It will be $3.5 billion in 2020 to purchase almost 100 million tonnes of carbon credits from abroad, it will be $57 billion – one and a half per cent of gross domestic product – shovelled off abroad by 2050 to purchase some 400 million tonnes of carbon credits from abroad.

…

So Mr Speaker, this carbon tax proposal from the Government would be disastrous for our democracy. How can Australians continue to trust our democracy when the biggest and most complex policy change in recent history is being rammed through this parliament by the most incompetent government in recent history? The biggest and the most complex change, sponsored by the least competent government in recent times, not only does it not have a mandate to do what it is proposing it has a mandate not to do what it is proposing. That’s why this package of bills is so disastrous for our democracy.

Mr Speaker, it’s disastrous for our democracy, it’s disastrous for the trust that should exist between members of parliament and their electorates.

Why are the Members for Throsby and Cunningham sponsoring such damage to BlueScope and to the coal miners of the Illawarra?

Why is the Member for Hunter and the other Hunter Valley members of the Government doing such damage to the heavy industries and to the coal mines of the Hunter?

How can the Climate Change Minister talk to his constituents with a straight face given what he is doing to them?

How can the Member for Capricornia want to close down so many mines in her electorate?

How can the Members for Corio and Corangamite be doing this to the cement industry and to the aluminium industry and to the motor industry of Geelong?

What we have from this Government is politically and economically and environmentally disastrous.

But it’s more than that.

It is going to turn out to be the longest political suicide note in Australian history.

Read it all here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Lies and spin launch carbon tax bills

14 September, 2011 by

The eighteen carbon [dioxide] tax bills were introduced into Parliament yesterday. As usual, Julia Gillard couched the introduction in lies, misrepresentations and spin.

Let us not forget what Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan said in August 2010, days before the last general election:

But, desperate to stay in power after the narrowest of election victories, and having sold out to the Greens for their support, Gillard and Swan promptly executed a 180 degree about turn, betraying the electorate to appease Bob Brown and his band of eco-tards.

Here is Gillard’s introduction, from Hansard (PDF), with some comments included:

This House has been debating climate change for decades. Parliamentary debate of this issue predates this building itself. My predecessor as member for Lalor, Barry Jones, once said this about climate change, ‘If we are only prepared to plan five years, 10 years, 15 years or 20 years down the track all the dangers that are feared can be avoided.’

Those words were spoken 24 years ago next week.

We have now had decades of heated public argument and political opinion.

Alongside decades of enlightened scientific research and economic analysis. [But this government only listens to the research and analysis that fits its pre-conceived agenda]

After all those opinions have been expressed, most Australians now agree [FALSE – most Australian’s strongly DISAGREE]:

  • our climate is changing [TRUE – as it has for 4.5 billion years]
  • this is caused by carbon pollution [FALSE – the relative contributions of natural and anthropogenic drivers is completely unknown]
  • this has harmful effects on our environment and on the economy [UNKNOWN – the effects of a natural global cooling could be far, far worse]
  • and the government should act. [FALSE – nothing Australia does alone will make any difference to the climate]

And after all that analysis has been done, most economists and experts [that I have selectively chosen to listen to, that is] also now agree: The best way is to make polluters pay [Australia’s most productive industries suffer] by putting a price on carbon. [Gillard still continues to refer to the harmless trace gas carbon dioxide as “carbon”]

So that is the policy of the government I lead. [Ironic that she chooses the identical phraseology to that used in the video above – just to rub it in, perhaps?]

And that is the plan which is before the House now.

A plan for a carbon-pricing mechanism which means around 500 big polluters pay [most productive Australian industries suffer] for every tonne of carbon pollution they put into our atmosphere.

A plan to cut carbon pollution by at least 160 million tonnes a year in 2020. [Which in real terms is square-root of bugger all]

A plan for tax cuts, increased pensions and increased family payments. [If you want people to reduce their usage of fossil fuels, why are we compensating them? Is it because this is more about wealth redistribution than climate change?]

A plan for clean energy jobs and investment [Total nonsense – every manufactured “green” job costs real people REAL jobs]. A plan for a clean energy future for our country [people will use “clean energy” by themselves when it is competitive. Forcing them to do so simply skews the market and allows green industries to cream massive subsidies].

Today we move from words to deeds. This parliament is going to get this done. [We’ll see]

This government is riding roughshod over the electorate of Australia. It has no mandate to introduce this tax, and should rightly put the question to the people of Australia at an election. The opinion polls tell the story. Ordinary Australians have had enough of the lies and spin. We can only hope that one or two Labor MPs with a conscience (are there any??) will vote it down out of principle. But I think that is highly unlikely. Just a bunch of brainwashed lemmings that do as they are told.

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