Resisting Climate Hysteria

[noco]

I'm just picturing Tony and Greg spruiking Direct Action to China and the USA, explaining how it works, really getting into the policy detail.

I'm pretty confident Xi and Obama will be left with as much understand as the Australian public had from Tony and Brandis' attempts on explaining metadata and the proposed data retention laws.

This is how the Direct Action plan works if you care to read it.

Perhaps we should all wait until 2020 to see if it works......give it a fair go and if it does not work I will be the first to criticize it....that is if I am still around at the time.

http://www.energetics.com.au/getmed...t-Action-Handout_An-overview_-part-1.pdf.aspx

 

[drsmith]

The Australian on the recent China/US climate deal,

THE glow is fading from the US-China climate deal only a day after it was sealed, with Tony Abbott saying Australia’s actions on carbon emissions are more practical and China’s pledge being criticised as a “non-binding charade”.

The Prime Minister dismissed calls to strengthen his Direct Action policy in the wake of the deal, declaring his plan would cut emissions now rather than “something that might happen in 16 years’ time’’.

The deal will step up diplomatic momentum before the Paris climate change talks next year but, although the Chinese commitment to cap its emissions is significant, they will grow dramatically before they peak by 2030. China also agreed to grow the share of renewable energy to 20 per cent of total energy production by the same date.

The US commitment to cut emissions to 26 per cent to 28 per cent below 2005 targets by 2025 is less than its 2011pledge to a pathway for a 30 per cent reduction in 2025 and a 42 per cent reduction in 2030.

Labor and the Greens said the deal meant Australia was being left behind on climate change and Mr Abbott had “egg on his face’’.

But Frontier Economics founder Danny Price said on a like-for-like basis Australia’s exist*ing target of a 5 per cent cut by 2020 “looks comparable to the US effort’’. He said US President Barack Obama had announced a slight reduction in emissions cuts compared with earlier commitments.

With the Republicans in control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, Mr Obama is seen as having little chance of passing legislation to enact his commitments, forcing him to move by regulation.

The next presidential election, in 2016, becomes critical to the future of any commitments as a Republican president could unwind Obama regulations.

Senator Jim Inhofe, the likely new Republican chairman of the Senate environment and public works committee, described China’s pledge as “hollow and not believable’’ and a “non-binding charade’’.

Research in 2012 by the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change found that, on a like-for-like basis, Australia’s 5 per cent pledge was comparable with those of other leading economies. Its 2020 target is -15 per cent, compared with the US’s -17 per cent, when expressed as a reduction on 2005 levels.

Given Australia’s faster-growing population and when factors such as the US shift away from coal to gas are taken into account, the Australian reduction is greater when compared with a business-as-usual scenario, at 26 per cent against the US’s 18 per cent.

Australia with an estimated GDP growth of 50 per cent between 2005 and 2020 will cut emissions by 15 per cent, compared with a 17 per cent cut by the US with 40 per cent GDP growth over the same period.

Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said the “historic’’ US-China deal highlighted why Australia’s emissions reduction policy needed to go back to a polluter-pays policy.

He said the US-China deal was “reshaping international and economic alignments’’ and “spotlights the ludicrous inadequacy of the emissions reduction fund as a primary pollution policy’’.

“If the ERF is the primary tool to match even US efforts, the government’s proposed ‘safeguard measures’ imposing limits on polluters are going to need to be super strong and renewable energy targets strengthened, otherwise the budget could face a $9 (billion) to $30bn a year slug,” he said.

The Prime Minister said Australia was focused on the “here and now’’ rather than “hypotheticals’’ and he was confident it would reach its 5 per cent target by 2020.

“I’m focusing not on what might happen in 16 years’ time, I’m focusing on what we’re doing now and we’re not talking we’re acting,’’ Mr Abbott said.

Bill Shorten said the government had “egg on their face because the rest of the world is dealing with an issue that Tony Abbott doesn’t want to talk about’’.

Australian Conservation Foundation president Geoff Cousins said the US-China announcement brought the inadequacies of Direct Action into stark relief.

He said Australia needed an emissions reduction target of 30 per cent not 5 per cent.

Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Brendan Pearson said that the International Energy Agency predicted that the world coal trade would grow by 40 per cent by 2040. Chinese coal-fired power production is still predicted to grow to 2040.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...says-tony-abbott/story-fnpebfcn-1227122428011

 

[Julia]

Chinese coal-fired power production is still predicted to grow to 2040.

From all the rejoicing one might imagine none of the celebrants had actually taken the above bit in, any more than they have the notional nature of the whole announcement.

What really is good about it is that the US and China are actually talking to each other.

 

[So_Cynical]

This is how the Direct Action plan works if you care to read it.

Perhaps we should all wait until 2020 to see if it works......give it a fair go and if it does not work I will be the first to criticize it....that is if I am still around at the time.

http://www.energetics.com.au/getmed...t-Action-Handout_An-overview_-part-1.pdf.aspx

Have any other direct action type plans in other country's worked? can a non market, government funded reduction plan actually work? is that funding sustainable? how do Noalition voters and supporters feel about the 2 billion?

Direct action is a 2 billion dollar plan to achieve nothing, a delaying tactic just like the Aust green house office was for the Howard Govt, they spent 1 Billion dollars on studys, consultation, negotiations and achieved nothing, no GHG reduction at all was realised.

 

[noco]

Have any other direct action type plans in other country's worked? can a non market, government funded reduction plan actually work? is that funding sustainable? how do Noalition voters and supporters feel about the 2 billion?

Direct action is a 2 billion dollar plan to achieve nothing, a delaying tactic just like the Aust green house office was for the Howard Govt, they spent 1 Billion dollars on studys, consultation, negotiations and achieved nothing, no GHG reduction at all was realised.

As I have said , you will just have to wait and see.

You have to agree, Labor's big Carbon dioxide tax has done nothing to reduce CO2.....The biggest tax in the world......All it did was to increase the cost of living by $550 to the working families of Australia.

So instead of trying to bring down the COALITION...why can't you give it a fair go?

Please note the COALITION is spelt with a "C" and not an "N".....That spelling of yours is becoming monotonous to say the least.

 

[So_Cynical]

Last Hours narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio.

The deniers/liars wont like this one...11 minutes of fact, science, history and expert opinion.
~
[video=youtube_share;2bRrg96UtMc]http://youtu.be/2bRrg96UtMc[/video]

 

[noco]

Last Hours narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio.

The deniers/liars wont like this one...11 minutes of fact, science, history and expert opinion.
~
[video=youtube_share;2bRrg96UtMc]http://youtu.be/2bRrg96UtMc[/video]

Clap...Clap...Clap.....What a very clever fabrication presented by good actors and no doubt well paid to do it.

Di Caprio is a good GREENIE mate of Al Gore and Ban-ki-Moon, and no doubt DiCaprio has large sums of money invested in Gore's ETS which he has been trying set up in about 40 different countries....these blokes are con artists to say the least and are only interested in the money they can make out of it.

If you believe in the total contents of that presentation, then all I can say is you must still believe in Santa Claus.

Of course there are many naive people who will swallow this misinformation but anyone with an ounce of brain will think differently.

 

[noco]

Clap...Clap...Clap.....What a very clever fabrication presented by good actors and no doubt well paid to do it.

Di Caprio is a good GREENIE mate of Al Gore and Ban-ki-Moon, and no doubt DiCaprio has large sums of money invested in Gore's ETS which he has been trying set up in about 40 different countries....these blokes are con artists to say the least and are only interested in the money they can make out of it.

If you believe in the total contents of that presentation, then all I can say is you must still believe in Santa Claus.

Of course there are many naive people who will swallow this misinformation but anyone with an ounce of brain will think differently.

Of course Bill Shorten had his negative reply.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...1?sv=baf6bd4de48fff263483272550c8d5a4&login=1

And here is the last comment....Please do read the rest as to what the average person thinks.

Christine 1 hour ago

The UN's own polling which asked 5million people around the globe to rate 17 things in order of importance to them - Climate Change rated at #17! People rated jobs, the economy, infrastructure, health, education, etc....as far more important to them. The climate alarmists and carpetbaggers are beating a dead horse, and they know it.

 

[noco]

Bjorn Lomberg, a former Greenpeace activist, also claims Climate Cahnge is a con job.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...imate_deal_a_weaker_us_at_no_cost_to_beijing/

The global warming deal is a con. Bjorn Lomborg says Barack Obama has promised to hurt America in exchange for China promising to do nothing extra at all:

The US-China statement hedges itself, making no new obligations: “The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below its 2005 level in 2025… China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20 per cent by 2030...”

China essentially promised what it was already going to do. In the International Energy Agency’s baseline scenario, China’s CO2 emissions peak in 2030 at about 10 gigatonnes, or 25 per cent higher than today. And China already emits more than a quarter of the world’s CO2 emissions.

 

[So_Cynical]

Clap...Clap...Clap.....What a very clever fabrication presented by good actors and no doubt well paid to do it.

Di Caprio is a good GREENIE mate of Al Gore and Ban-ki-Moon, and no doubt DiCaprio has large sums of money invested in Gore's ETS which he has been trying set up in about 40 different countries....these blokes are con artists to say the least and are only interested in the money they can make out of it.

If you believe in the total contents of that presentation, then all I can say is you must still believe in Santa Claus.

Of course there are many naive people who will swallow this misinformation but anyone with an ounce of brain will think differently.

And there you have it - denial.

 

[noco]

And there you have it - denial.

OH yes and there are millions around the world who think the same as I do.....it is still one big con job.

That USA / China rhetoric is all window dressing and did not last 24 hours, and in the meantime Christine Milne is still orbiting the moon.

 

[sptrawler]

And there you have it - denial.

Actually noco does have a point, what qualifications does Di Caprio have, other than being able to fake emotions in front of a camera?

Reminds me of that other fiasco, the "Think Tank" starring Cate Blanchett and Hugh Jackman.

What a hoot, how has that roadmap turned out, as GG would say another Labor brain fart.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-have-short-life/story-e6frezz0-1225697083389

 

[herzy]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but purely from a political perspective, I find it very odd that our supposedly righter wing party is proposing government intervention, whereas our supposed left is propounding a market-based solution.

And yet, the right wingers on here support direct action, and the left wingers support a market based strategy? What's going on

Surely, assuming we want to do something about carbon dioxide, we would all agree that along the market to determine the best way to do so is better? Apparently not...

 

[sptrawler]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but purely from a political perspective, I find it very odd that our supposedly righter wing party is proposing government intervention, whereas our supposed left is propounding a market-based solution.

And yet, the right wingers on here support direct action, and the left wingers support a market based strategy? What's going on

Surely, assuming we want to do something about carbon dioxide, we would all agree that along the market to determine the best way to do so is better? Apparently not...

From my personal position, I don't want anything done, untill it actually coincides with and alignes with a global plan that the major emmiters agree to.

To run off down the back yard and commit Hara-Kiri, seems sensless to me.

It might look good in the Fairfax newspapers, but doesn't push my buttons.

 

[herzy]

From my personal position, I don't want anything done, untill it actually coincides with and alignes with a global plan that the major emmiters agree to.

The view that we shouldn't do something unless others do, because we can't make a difference alone, jars with me. It's that inertia that allowed Nazism to carry on for so long - and the eventual collective will and resistance that allowed it to be toppled.

Similarly, Berlin just celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall. It was many seemingly small and inconsequential events that occurred before that which led to that highly significant event. It's a shame that Hungary and the Czech Republic aren't recognised as much as they should be.

Regardless, the big polluters ARE doing more. We're the single biggest polluter per capita in the world.

What would you like the major emitters to agree to in order for Australia to undertake any action? Do you think that the Australian Government has the right to operate and negotiate on a global plane (with a straight face), despite having an attitude of 'we won't do anything until you do'?

 

[noco]

We live in a democracy and the Coalition went to the 2013 election with a mandate on direct action....it has been passed through the lower house and now the senate......it is a done deal so I think it is about time the alarmist, the Greens and the Labor Party got over it.
Personally, I was not in agreement with a direct action plan or a Carbon dioxide tax but I have accepted the democratic process of it happening.

We represent 1% of the world emissions of carbon dioxide.

So now that it is law , shouldn't we wait and see the results or failure of the scheme rather than carry on like a pork chop at a Jewish picnic for ever and a day.

Move on...FCS.

 

[sptrawler]

The view that we shouldn't do something unless others do, because we can't make a difference alone, jars with me. It's that inertia that allowed Nazism to carry on for so long - and the eventual collective will and resistance that allowed it to be toppled.

Similarly, Berlin just celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall. It was many seemingly small and inconsequential events that occurred before that which led to that highly significant event. It's a shame that Hungary and the Czech Republic aren't recognised as much as they should be.

Regardless, the big polluters ARE doing more. We're the single biggest polluter per capita in the world.

What would you like the major emitters to agree to in order for Australia to undertake any action? Do you think that the Australian Government has the right to operate and negotiate on a global plane (with a straight face), despite having an attitude of 'we won't do anything until you do'?

Ok stop driving a car, because it will reduce pollution, but will mean fff all. jeez

I'm up to my armpitts, with people telling me what should be done, and doing ff all themselves.

Park up the car, no sell it, buy a ffing bike, put solar panels on the roof, if you have plenty of money put solar on your kids houses, throw out your gas hot water and put on solar. If you have plenty of money put it on your kids houses.

Then tell me me what I should be doing, then I will give you another list of crap you can remove,replace or improve to lower your carbon footprint.

I've done the above, i'm just sick of hearing the crap.

And yes, I've had a bad day.

 

[Julia]

The view that we shouldn't do something unless others do, because we can't make a difference alone, jars with me. It's that inertia that allowed Nazism to carry on for so long - and the eventual collective will and resistance that allowed it to be toppled.

Similarly, Berlin just celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall. It was many seemingly small and inconsequential events that occurred before that which led to that highly significant event. It's a shame that Hungary and the Czech Republic aren't recognised as much as they should be.

Regardless, the big polluters ARE doing more. We're the single biggest polluter per capita in the world.

What would you like the major emitters to agree to in order for Australia to undertake any action? Do you think that the Australian Government has the right to operate and negotiate on a global plane (with a straight face), despite having an attitude of 'we won't do anything until you do'?

herzy, how was it reasonable for Australia to significantly disadvantage our business community with a carbon tax at such a high price, when most of our trading partners were not doing anything remotely similar?

In taking what perhaps is a moral stand (if you accept K. Rudd's assertion that 'climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time' yada yada, it's not realistic to dismiss the economic factors.

As sptrawler suggests, if the whole world were to come to an agreement on an international trading scheme or whatever, then Australia could participate without specifically penalising our industry. Goodness knows, our economy doesn't need any impediments.

I've largely tuned out of the whole discussion but have been struck by the frenzy of excitement engendered by the joint announcement by USA and China, none of which is anything more than aspiration at this stage.
Isn't the claim of Australia being the biggest per capita polluter (jeez, I'm sick of that expression especially after it's repeatedly uttered along with photos of just steam rising ) including all our exports of coal, iron ore etc rather than the implied suggestion that we Australians are personally out-polluting other countries. Just a look at the skies over China makes this a bit hard to believe.

 

[herzy]

I didn't intend to tell anyone that they should do anything. Sorry if you took it that way sptrawler.

I'm not perfect, and of course am a consumer - but I don't drive, minimise my meat intake, and don't see how much more I can feasibly do to reduce my carbon footprint at this time.

herzy, how was it reasonable for Australia to significantly disadvantage our business community with a carbon tax at such a high price, when most of our trading partners were not doing anything remotely similar?

In taking what perhaps is a moral stand (if you accept K. Rudd's assertion that 'climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time' yada yada, it's not realistic to dismiss the economic factors.

As sptrawler suggests, if the whole world were to come to an agreement on an international trading scheme or whatever, then Australia could participate without specifically penalising our industry. Goodness knows, our economy doesn't need any impediments.

I've largely tuned out of the whole discussion but have been struck by the frenzy of excitement engendered by the joint announcement by USA and China, none of which is anything more than aspiration at this stage.
Isn't the claim of Australia being the biggest per capita polluter (jeez, I'm sick of that expression especially after it's repeatedly uttered along with photos of just steam rising ) including all our exports of coal, iron ore etc rather than the implied suggestion that we Australians are personally out-polluting other countries. Just a look at the skies over China makes this a bit hard to believe.

I'm not defending the carbon tax, or really taking a stance on climate action. I was more just commenting that the approaches of our two parties somehow seem to be contrary to their respective political ideologies.

I agree the US/China deal is overblown, as you rightly pointed out much earlier.

I also agree that economic concerns are relevant, and have never dismissed them. Actually all of my posts have been decidedly neutral on the issue.

That said:

- it's not true that 'all of our trading partners weren't doing anything remotely similar'
- I think it's dangerous to wait for world-wide consensus before acting (because world-wide consensus almost never occurs in the UN)
- Our economy is absolutely fine. I'm not saying we should unduly punish it (I'm not even suggesting we do anything), but I do think Australian concerns about our economy and national debt are a bit overblown. We are the only developed country not to have gone into recession. We're still going strong. Aussie dollar has fallen. Unemployment very low. I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to find a country doing better than us... If anyone can afford to take action, we can.
- I didn't think the statistic included our imports (that would be hugely misleading). The smog over China doesn't mean that they're producing more per capita than we are. In total volume, of course, but not per capita. I think the statistic comes from the fact that we drive a lot, have resource-intense Western lifestyle, have huge meat consumption, etc - and there aren't many countries that have almost their whole population living in this way

 

[sptrawler]

I didn't intend to tell anyone that they should do anything. Sorry if you took it that way sptrawler.

I'm not perfect, and of course am a consumer - but I don't drive, minimise my meat intake, and don't see how much more I can feasibly do to reduce my carbon footprint at this time.

Yes, sorry mate.
But whatever we do, no matter if it was with the best intent, it has an adverse effect on someone.