Penny Wong: alarmism and empty threats

14 November, 2009 by

The Wong-bot

The Wong-bot

Curious, isn’t it, that CSIRO choose to release dire warnings about the effects of sea level rises of 1.1m by 2100 just before the Senate is due to debate the ETS, giving the Wong-bot the perfect opportunity to threaten the Coalition with apocalyptic consequences if the ETS isn’t passed. The Wong-bot denies that it’s a scare campaign (well, she would, wouldn’t she) but I think the evidence speaks for itself:

As a result, the report says, more than $60 billion worth of residential property faces flooding.

In addition 120 ports, 1,800 bridges, power stations, water treatment plants and airports close to the coastline are also under threat.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the findings can’t be ignored.

“The science tells us our climate is changing faster than first projected and the impacts are likely to be more severe,” she told reporters in Sydney.

Australia must immediately reduce its carbon emissions, she said.

“Which is why we are determined to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.”

OK then, Penny. Let’s work this through the twisted logic of this, shall we?

Question 1: Assuming the two-errors-in-four-words Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) is passed and Australia cripples its economy and reduces its emissions by, say, 20% by 2020, what effect will that have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Nothing, because Australia produces less than 1.5% of global emissions.

Question 2: Assuming that at Copenhagen, the rest of the developed world is so impressed with Australia’s brand new, shiny ETS that they all fall over themselves to cripple their economies too, and sign a treaty reducing emissions significantly by 2020, what effect will that have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Nothing, because increased emissions from China (who are building a new coal fired power station every week) and India (who have more important things to worry about, like tackling poverty and disease – you know, stuff that really does kill people) will more than make up for any cuts by developed countries. Plus, the developed countries will begin to realise that running a developed economy on sunbeams and fart-power ain’t as easy as they thought, so targets will simply not be met.

Question 3: Assuming that China and India miraculously reduce their emissions as well, what effect will that have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Almost certainly nothing, for the same reasons as above, and also since CO2 is unlikely to be revealed as the main driver (or even one of the main drivers) of “global warming”.

Question 4: Assuming that CO2 is the main driver (or one of the main drivers) of “global warming”, what effect will the ETS and/or the Copenhagen treaty have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Nothing, because just like the Kyoto Treaty, which even if fully implemented would have reduced global temperatures by about three and a half gazillionths of a degree, the Copenhagen treaty will have no discernible effect on the climate whatsoever.

Scare campaign? You decide. Why on earth the Coalition are even bothering to negotiate is quite frankly beyond my comprehension.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Jobs for the boys: Flannery to head climate change council

14 November, 2009 by

flannery

Flannelly

Who says alarmism doesn’t pay? It does when you have a government like ours in charge:

The Coast and Climate Change Council, headed by Tim Flannery, was officially announced by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong in Sydney on Saturday, coinciding with the release of a report looking at necessary preparations for coastal maintenance.

“This report marks a new phase in our work on adapting to a climate change we can’t avoid,” Senator Wong told local government mayors, councillors, community members and reporters at Sydney’s Clovelly beach on Saturday.

“And as part of this I’m announcing that we will be establishing a Coast and Climate Change Council to be chaired by Tim Flannery to engage with the community and stakeholders, local government, state government and advise the government in the lead up to the coastal forum which we propose to hold early next year.

Just when we need cool heads and impartial judgement, we get an AGW hysteric. Nice work if you can get it.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Wong: sceptics in "fantasy land"

10 November, 2009 by

Our climate spin is this big

Our climate spin is this big

Penny Wong has hit back at the Liberals after yesterday’s Four Corners, accusing them of inhabiting a “fantasy land”. Denier Alert as the Wong-bot gets personal:

“This is fantasy land,” she told Fairfax Radio Network on Tuesday.

“As we get closer to the pointy end of this discussion, the people who have blocked action on climate change for years by denying the science, by scaremongering and by delaying are simply going to become more shrill.

Scaremongering, Penny? Don’t make me laugh – that’s the job of your lapdog alarmists, like Will Steffen.

“And the government is also very clear about our view – this is in the national interest of Australia,” she said.

In the national interest to burden the economy with a huge tax which will achieve nothing whatsoever for the climate, and before we have any idea what will happen at Copenhagen? Perhaps you can just explain that one again, because to my mind, that sounds like total climate madness.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

The ABC: Labor's climate propaganda machine

9 November, 2009 by

Labor propaganda machine in action

Labor propaganda machine in action

Whilst the Howard government was given a rough ride by the ABC over every single one of its policies, Kevin Rudd and his cronies are allowed to get away with almost anything. Kerry O’Brien savaged the Coalition on a daily basis on the 7.30 Report during the Howard era, constantly interrupting and badgering, never letting them get a word in edgeways, forever ridiculing and humiliating, but with Labor he’s about as scary as Kerry-Anne (O’Brien’s a lefty of course, so it’s to be expected).

Since Labor has been in power, the ABC has continued in the same vein… except against the Opposition. It therefore comes as no surprise that tonight’s edition of Four Corners will focus not on the government’s flawed ETS and the quiet signing away of billions of taxpayer dollars to developing countries under a Copenhagen treaty, but on the Opposition’s response to it.

Reporter Sarah Ferguson goes inside the conservative parties to find out what the party members really think about climate change and why they’re so reluctant to back their leader.

In October Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull said, “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.”

It was a potentially dangerous strategy because it tied his leadership to a single issue. Just how risky that declaration was is only now becoming clear.

At that stage coalition MPs had clear doubts about supporting an emissions trading scheme but now a range of Nationals and Liberals have told Four Corners they don’t believe that climate change is primarily man-made.

“The earth is not actually warming, we still have rain falling … we can go outside and not cook.”

“If the question is, do people believe or not believe that human beings …are the main cause of the planet warming, then I’d say a majority don’t accept that position.”

This may surprise many voters and it’s led some to ask if Malcolm Turnbull’s position as leader is now untenable.

The problems for the opposition leader are reinforced by Liberal insiders who say his handling of the issue was a “folly”. Another says Malcolm Turnbull is simply too “green” for the party he leads. Yet another senior figure justifies his refusal to support his leader’s views by saying it’s important for him to openly question the idea that man is changing the climate at all.

There are so many questions the ABC should be asking Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong – like why Rudd hysterically condemned all who disagree with him on climate as dangerous (a small step away from silencing critics), or why they are keeping so quite about the Copenhagen draft treaty, or why they unquestioningly put their faith in the science from the IPCC, which has been discredited as a politically motivated and biased organisation to the core? But no – they choose to use it as an opportunity to further expose issues within the Opposition.

The only tangential benefit may be to strengthen the position of the sceptics within the Coalition, and weaken Turnbull’s position as a result, but I doubt it.

Thanks to the ABC, we are in a situation where an opposition is under more scrutiny than a serving government.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Climate talks end in division and pessimism

8 November, 2009 by

It's that black CO2 again…

It's that black CO2 again…

Ah, a headline to cheer the heart and lift the spirits. The longer an emissions reduction treaty can be delayed, the more the earth will fail to match the flawed climate models, and the more obvious it will be that anthropogenic carbon dioxide has little to do with the climate. We may, just, be able to salvage some of the prosperity that Western democracies have achieved over the past hundred years of economic and technological development, and which they seem so keen to chuck away in the dumpster:

The last United Nations negotiating session before next month’s Copenhagen summit on climate change has ended in Spain, with rich and poor nations still deeply divided.

Officials say a new treaty to replace the Kyoto accords on greenhouse gas emissions could take another year.

UN officials have admitted progress has been so slow on the most difficult issues they will need more time to legally seal the deal.

The key problems are targets for emissions cuts and money for poorer nations.

Copenhagen could still lead to a significant political agreement, but if it happens it will be a major achievement.

Above targets, money and technology, one major element was clearly missing this week – trust.

And the less chance of any binding agreement at Copenhagen means the more ludicrous Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong’s determination to railroad the ETS through parliament becomes.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

ETS amendments unaffordable

3 November, 2009 by

Well there’s a surprise. Because of the high dollar value and the low price of carbon, the government is making excuses in advance for rejecting many of the Opposition’s proposed amendments to the ETS – not that I’m bothered, however. It will then force the Opposition to do what they should have done from the start: vote the abysmal scheme down.

THE Government has flagged it may reject several Coalition amendments to its emissions trading scheme because it will now cost $2.5 billion by 2020.

The Government’s scheme was expected to make $208 million by 2020, but yesterday’s mid-year budget outlook from Treasurer Wayne Swan revealed a big turnaround because of lower likely carbon prices and a soaring Australian dollar.

The Government’s releasing of the figures is a message to the Opposition that not all the proposed amendments, including more free permits to heavy polluting industry and the coal industry, are affordable.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is believed to have conveyed this message to shadow resources minister Ian Macfarlane in talks last week.

Notes accompanying yesterday’s release state: ”This [the $2.5 billion black hole] underscores the need for caution in designing assistance measures, particularly those that lead to a permanent increase in scheme costs.”

Opposition spokesman Ian Macfarlane is not surprisingly pretty annoyed at having this dropped in at the last minute:

“This really stretches the friendship … dropping these numbers at a minute to midnight,” said Mr Macfarlane, who has been charged with doing a deal with the government on the ETS before the vote scheduled for late this month.

“It will certainly make the negotiation more difficult – there are areas we are working on where a lack of money could make a difference.“

Read it here and here.

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