Tony Abbott for PM

[Tink]

Hi Duckman

... Obviously he has had to come up with something but he doesn't give the impression of really believing in any need to do anything,

simply responding to the political need to offer an alternative to the Rudd ETS which is dead in the water anyway.

I agreed with her -- but then gave my opinion.

Is that ok?

 

[Duckman#72]

Hi Duckman

I agreed with her -- but then gave my opinion.

Is that ok?

Hi Tink

I'm sorry - I see you've linked the quotes. I assumed you were still referring to the trees in particular, not the whole Coalition plan.

Thanks
Duckman

 

[Tink]

Thats fine Duckman.

Apology accepted

 

[Julia]

Hi Julia

According to the 7:30 report Hawke oversaw the planting of 10 times that many trees back in 1988 - so there must be a way to do it. Rudd promised to fix the Murray and waterways at the last election and as he is a "man of action" and not just a "man of word" we should have the water.

Good to hear about the previous tree planting, Duckman. Thanks for that.
I do really like the idea, just worried a bit that if it was a gesture that wasn't followed through, it would be a shame and would give Labor plenty of ammunition.

If anyone understands what's involved in the suggestion of burying carbon on farming land, I'd appreciate an explanation. Apologies if I don't have the terminology correct.

I agree with your appraisal of Abbott Julia - his performance on the 7:30 Report wasn't convincing. Polish isn't his strong suit. His big problem is that his strength is also his biggest weakness. He is a straight down the line, honest, conviction politician - he tells it how it is and how he sees it.

Yes, he does. He frankly admitted that he was not as evangelical as Mr Rudd about climate change which was honest and also pointed out that Mr Rudd has - along with Ms Wong and the Greens - turned climate change into a religion. I'm not sure that this religious fervour is shared by a majority of Australians, post the Copenhagen fiasco.

There were so many questions that could have been downplayed, avoided or deflected by spin last night - but that clearly isn't Abbott. What you see is what you get.

As expected, Kerry O'Brien had to ask him how he justified his earlier comment that climate change was crap. I bet Tony Abbott is regretting that particular remark mightily now!

It is going to be a big issue for the Coalition media advisers and campaign managers this election. It is very important that Abbott sells his policies clearly and honestly. I think a lot of people may well vote for Abbott, without liking him, but it will have to be clearly based on his policies. He will never out-polish, out-slick or out-spin Rudd.

I might be wrong, but I have the impression that a good chunk of the electorate base their views on what the media presents. Just recently most media has begun to question the basis for Rudd's popularity, i.e. that the slick talk and verbosity has come to nothing. I think strongly in many people's minds is his promise that if the health system wasn't fixed by mid 2009 he would be instituting a Federal takeover. Absolutely nothing has happened.

It may well come down to whether the voting public want:

A prime minister that looks good, sounds good but are starting to doubt on ability to deliver and over promising: or

A prime minister that is raw, unpolished but people are prepared to take on trust

In my opinion growing problem for Rudd is the over promising rhetoric he has used in the past. He regularly bites off more than he can handle. The question remains - are the Australian public prepared to give him some slack and take his past words on face value (and still see him as the genuine article), or are they fast becoming sceptical and disbelieving (and seeing him as a masterful spin merchant doing and saying whatever is necessary to stay in power).

Duckman

Yep, agree. The additional problem I have with Tony Abbott, though, is that I'm not actually sure that 'what you see is what you get'. He has demonstrated a quite remarkable capacity to change his mind and to back away from previously stated intent.

However, as agreed, he's a huge improvement over Malcolm Turnbull and, unlike Mr Turnbull, my guess is that he will be prepared to listen to advice.
I hope so.

I thought the same thing Julia, who is going to water these trees, and I agree that Abbott has just come up with something for sake of coming up with something, to please the public.

Trees?? I had to laugh

.

Tink, I wasn't dismissing or laughing at the idea of tree planting. On the contrary I'm much in favour of it. Just concerned that the maintenance of said trees could constitute a problem. Duckman has reassured me about this.

 

[nioka]

If anyone understands what's involved in the suggestion of burying carbon on farming land, I'd appreciate an explanation. Apologies if I don't have the terminology correct.QUOTE]

It is simple really. You probably do it yourself in the garden. By building up organics in the soil you are actually capturing carbon. Good farmers have been doing it for years. A good example is the ploughing in of trash rather than burning it as done by wheat farmers and cane growers. Another is the growing of "green manure" that is ploughed in.

The problem is measuring the amount of carbon and allocating a value.

Another possibility is by changing the feed or adding compounds to the feed of livestock it is possible to change/reduce the production of methane released. This is a harder one to measure and value.

 

[Buddy]

IMHO krudd and wrong have designed the perfect trap for themselves. In fact a perfect storm. They have committed themselves to a 5% CO2 reduction (based on year 2000 levels) at a huge cost. Abbott has seized the opportunity, and is offering 5% based on 1990 levels, and at a fraction of krudd's (read you and I) cost. All he has to do is get rid of Victoria's brown coal fired power stations (by changing to gas) and the 5% reduction is a doddle, a walk in the park. The current guvmint might just happen to be a bit too smart for their own good.

krudd is making starting to wake up some extremely powerful enemies (er, try the complete mining industry, exporters, the oil & gas industry, small business, the taxpayer) with his dumbassed policies (ETS, medical insurance rebate, resource rent tax, reduction in productivity - by unleashing the unions, population policy/immigration). Oh how the mighty have fallen.

 

[GumbyLearner]

If anyone understands what's involved in the suggestion of burying carbon on farming land, I'd appreciate an explanation. Apologies if I don't have the terminology correct.

Don't understand the science myself Julia.

But I found the work of Dr Christine Jones retired soil scientist
very interesting. She is working hard by the looks of things.

It's on the ABC Landline webpage and under the title Ground Control.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/

Well worth a watch!

 

[noco]

I thought the same thing Julia, who is going to water these trees, and I agree that Abbott has just come up with something for sake of coming up with something, to please the public.

Trees?? I had to laugh

Noco, of course they are united now, no changes in there. Its the Howard Crew, will be no difference of opinion.

But Rudd does not like a united Coalition, that's why he flogged it for months, when he said "How can that mob on the other side be an alternative Government when they can't agree with each other. Now he has to flog a dead horse.
Turbull made it so esay for Rudd. Thank goodness Turbull is out.

 

[Duckman#72]

Yes, he does. He frankly admitted that he was not as evangelical as Mr Rudd about climate change which was honest and also pointed out that Mr Rudd has - along with Ms Wong and the Greens - turned climate change into a religion. I'm not sure that this religious fervour is shared by a majority of Australians, post the Copenhagen fiasco.

As expected, Kerry O'Brien had to ask him how he justified his earlier comment that climate change was crap. I bet Tony Abbott is regretting that particular remark mightily now!

I think he needs to take control of the way the media covers climate change and the climate change debate. Strongly come out and turn the climate change debate on its head once and for all. I think he'd get ordinary voters applauding if he stood on the front steps of Canberra and said:


"I don't know how quickly gobal warming is coming into play, or how much effect humankind is contributing or even how quickly it can be reversed. I don't have all the answers. This doesn't make me a Climate Change Skeptic but rather an honest politician that is trying to learn as much as I can about the issues. What I do know is that in Australia we have some of the world's least efficient powers producers and I am strongly committed to reducing our pollution levels. The coalition has a proud history of environmental issues and we see this policy as sending a clear message to the Australian people "We are very serious about tackling pollution and its associated climate change effects......and we will do it better and spend less doing it, than Mr Rudd and his ETS".


It was painful to watch O'Brien last night asking ad nausem "Mr Abbott do you believe in climate change? Are you a climate change believer or are you a skeptic?" The coalition and their advisers need to get the message out there that there is nothing wrong with questioning and debating science. In fact a eminent British scientist came out this week saying that criticism, debate and questioning is healthy for the scientific community and that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made through trying to disprove and debunk "facts" of science.

Unfortunately this is not black and white enought for the media. There is only a red corner and a blue corner. You're either "with us" or "against us".

Abbott made some great points to O'Brien that Kerry chose to ignore just so he could press the question -"Are you or are you not a climate change believer?"

Abbott answer was a good one - regardless of whether he is a believer, he is putting forward a policy that is cheaper than Labours, is less complicated, that will produce results that may exceed those of Labour and is without question "good for the environment". The environment will not be hlped nor hindered by Abbott's sudden conversion to "climate change believer".

The Coalition can't let the media and Labour treat Abbott as a luddite just because of healthy questioning. They better hurry up - the term "Climate Change Skeptic" is akin to the old "Work Choices" phrase. The average person mightn't know a hell of a lot about either but they just get it bashed into them by the media that it is bad/evil.

Duckman

 

[GumbyLearner]

I think he needs to take control of the way the media covers climate change and climate change policy.

It was painful to watch O'Brien last night asking ad nausem "Mr Abbott do you believe in climate change? Are you a climate change believer or are you a skeptic?"

The coalition and their advisers need to get the message out there that there is nothing wrong with questioning and debating science. In fact a eminent British scientist came out this week saying that criticism, debate and questioning is healthy for the scientific community and that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made through trying to disprove and debunk "facts" of science.

Unfortunately this is not black and white enought for the media. There is only a red corner and a blue corner. You're either "with us" or "against us".

Abbott made some great points to O'Brien that Kerry chose to ignore just so he could press the question -"Are you or are you not a climate change believer?"

Abbott answer was a good one - regardless of whether he is a believer, he is putting forward a policy that is cheaper than Labours, is less complicated, that will produce results that may exceed those of Labour and is without question "good for the environment". The environment will not be hlped nor hindered by Abbott's sudden conversion to "climate change believer".

Abbott is just being honest - he might be skeptical about the rate of global warming, how much effect humankind is contributing and how quickly it can be reversed. Hell, I think that would be normal!

The Coalition can't let the media and Labour treat Abbott as a luddite just because of healthy questioning.

They better hurry up - the term "Climate Change Skeptic" is akin to the old "Work Choices" phrase. The average person mightn't know a hell of a lot about either but they just get it bashed into them by the media that it is bad/evil.

Duckman

Debate is healthy for sure. The media are quite annoying at times. The US media are notorious at painting tons of issues as either black/white or us vs them. Like everyone is either a left-wing socialist anti-waterboarder or a right-wing fascist pro-waterboarder.

You question the costs of ETS on the average punter and all of sudden you are a whacko climate-change denier.What rot!

 

[Julia]

If anyone understands what's involved in the suggestion of burying carbon on farming land, I'd appreciate an explanation. Apologies if I don't have the terminology correct.QUOTE]

It is simple really. You probably do it yourself in the garden. By building up organics in the soil you are actually capturing carbon. Good farmers have been doing it for years. A good example is the ploughing in of trash rather than burning it as done by wheat farmers and cane growers. Another is the growing of "green manure" that is ploughed in.

.

Is that all! I'd have naively assumed that farmers would already be doing this. So nothing to do with capturing the carbon produced by e.g. coal fired power and 'burying it'?

Don't understand the science myself Julia.

But I found the work of Dr Christine Jones retired soil scientist
very interesting. She is working hard by the looks of things.

It's on the ABC Landline webpage and under the title Ground Control.

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/

Well worth a watch!

Thanks Gumby. Will have a look.

I think he needs to take control of the way the media covers climate change and climate change policy.

It was painful to watch O'Brien last night asking ad nausem "Mr Abbott do you believe in climate change? Are you a climate change believer or are you a skeptic?"

The coalition and their advisers need to get the message out there that there is nothing wrong with questioning and debating science. In fact a eminent British scientist came out this week saying that criticism, debate and questioning is healthy for the scientific community and that some of the greatest scientific discoveries have been made through trying to disprove and debunk "facts" of science.

Unfortunately this is not black and white enought for the media. There is only a red corner and a blue corner. You're either "with us" or "against us".

Abbott made some great points to O'Brien that Kerry chose to ignore just so he could press the question -"Are you or are you not a climate change believer?"

Yes, O'Brien does this all the time. His personal political affiliations are obvious. He's not the only one. Tony Jones is equally biased.

I agree with what you're suggesting, Duckman. Instead of being defensive all the time in the face of this line of questioning, it would seem more useful (and also honest) to point out that it's not 'climate change' which is under question by so called sceptics, but rather the degree to which human behaviour contributes to this, something which has yet to be clearly established.

Questioners who persist in this pejorative tone, e.g. the government, could be asked to produce the science which demonstrates unequivocally that any changing of the climate is anthropogenic and can be ameliorated by an emissions trading scheme.

Abbott answer was a good one - regardless of whether he is a believer, he is putting forward a policy that is cheaper than Labours, is less complicated, that will produce results that may exceed those of Labour and is without question "good for the environment". The environment will not be hlped nor hindered by Abbott's sudden conversion to "climate change believer".

And I'd guess the simplicity of the Abbott plan will have fairly broad appeal to the electorate, in contrast to their inability to understand how the Rudd ETS was going to work, if in fact it did.

 

[nioka]

Is that all! I'd have naively assumed that farmers would already be doing this. So nothing to do with capturing the carbon produced by e.g. coal fired power and 'burying it'.

That is exactly what it does do. It captures atmospheric CO2 (some of it as a result of power generation) and binds it into the soil. The problem with Rudds plan is that farmers are to be taxed for carbon "production" but not given any credits for the carbon they return to the soil. Contrary to urban belief farmers are, and have been in the main, true conservationists. Some more than others.

 

[Julia]

I see. Thanks, Nioka. Not sure if I dare to ask how they actually capture atmospheric CO2?

 

[noco]

I believe when Tony Abbott made the statement that climate change was "CRAP", he was referring to the false scientific rhetoric created by dishonest scientists and perhaps should have clarified his statement.
He, as well as anyone else, has the right to change their mind on any issue that has been proven false. Climate change is real and has been for millions of years. So how can it be man made?
Judging by a recent poll put out by Sky News yesterday, some 75% believe Abbott's CO2 reduction scheme is better than Rudd's 'big tax on everything'.
So their are many like minded people out there who have seen the light of day on Rudd's ETS and CPRS.

 

[nioka]

I see. Thanks, Nioka. Not sure if I dare to ask how they actually capture atmospheric CO2?

Absorbed (atmospheric CO2) by plants. Those plants ploughed in and the carbon is locked into the soil to be slowly broken down. Microbial action bonds the carbon atoms with other elements. Google "organic chemistry reactions".

 

[GumbyLearner]

I heard Barnaby Joyce use an old Paul Keating phrase today.

Concerning the ETS & Krudd's proposals he said something like...

"We are going to do him slowly."

Sounds like what Keating said to Hewson when he first proposed a GST.

It would have been great if BJ could have added another famous Keating quote with regard to the (Former Australian head of Goldman Sachs) Turntable's advocacy for an ETS.

Keating once said

"In a two horse race, you can always put your money on self-interest."

Anyway at least Abbott is NOT a Stalinist for allowing Turntable to propose his views & interests.

It is far more exciting to watch the Demublicans and Repocrats in the US rescue the banks than listen to all this stuff.

 

[Julia]

Anyway at least Abbott is NOT a Stalinist for allowing Turntable to propose his views & interests.

That's true. However, I don't know why Mr Turnbull doesn't just join the Labor Party and be done with it.

 

[noirua]

That is exactly what it does do. It captures atmospheric CO2 (some of it as a result of power generation) and binds it into the soil. The problem with Rudds plan is that farmers are to be taxed for carbon "production" but not given any credits for the carbon they return to the soil. Contrary to urban belief farmers are, and have been in the main, true conservationists. Some more than others.

I would have thought that most farmers want quality looking crops in large quantities to sell at the highest prices - thus spraying chemicals on their crops that pollute the atmosphere. Some organic farmers are not in this frame but are few in number - one has a photograph of Prince Charles displayed (I'm told this. I haven't checked).

 

[Whiskers]

Apart from capturing Co2 in plants and ploughing carbon back into the soil, many Farmers add additional Carbon in organic based fertilisers or as a concentrate to buff chemical fertilisers.

Is anyone going to pay us cash for adding carbon to the soil or give additional tax credits?

I believe Agricultural land is starting to get valued to an increasing degree by soil carbon levels as a measure of its productivity potential.

 

[Calliope]

I am fairly sure that Abbott, being an intelligent man, knows that carbon induced climate change is "crap". His emissions reduction plan is really a Clayton's scheme to serve as a carrot for those who are still getting over the residual effects of the alarmists' propaganda.

And it is working. A majority now favour Abbott's scheme over Rudd's ETS.