Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[noco]

All true. No way will Gillard call for an election, ordinary or DD, because to do so would be to ensure her own immediate demise.


But if Tony Abbott wins the next election, having gone to this election on rescinding the carbon tax, he can then propose to legislate this, and if the legislation is rejected twice (I think it's twice?) then he can call a double dissolution election.
If we were to come to this stage, it's going to be very, very likely that some of those new Greens senators would be thrown out and the Greens would in the new parliament no longer have the balance of power.

I simply can't see an early election happening this term, but do think there's hope for the above scenario if the Libs win the next election. They will have to be extremely clear about going to the election with the rescinding of the carbon tax being their main platform. Unless a lot changes between now and then, it's hard to see them not winning in a landslide.

Julia, one of the hopes we have left is a by-election in a Labor held seat. I believe there is one Labor member who is seriously ill; I don't know who. If he should resign through illness there would have to be a by-election and no doubt Labor would lose that seat and parliament would become unworkable.
If that were so, then parliament would have to be disolved and a general election would have to take place and Labor would lose.
If Abbott were to become Prime Minister and as you say legislation was blocked in the senate by the Greens on two or three occassions, then Abbott could hold the gun at Brown's head with the threat of a double dissolution of both houses. If that were to occur, I am sure Brown would well and truly be tamed.

 

[Julia]

TS, Tony Abbott has already said he would call a DD election if his legislation to rescind the carbon tax was resisted by Labor and the Greens.
I don't see why it wouldn't be fairly straightforward after he has put the legislation up twice, three months apart.

This, after all, is what was being called for when K. Rudd was leader on the basis that if he really believed climate change (or whatever it was being called then) was the greatest moral challenge of our time, then he would go to a DD election on this.

That's what he should have done. Instead he just backed down.
Tony Abbott would not back down on this.

 

[trainspotter]

TS, Tony Abbott has already said he would call a DD election if his legislation to rescind the carbon tax was resisted by Labor and the Greens.
I don't see why it wouldn't be fairly straightforward after he has put the legislation up twice, three months apart.

This, after all, is what was being called for when K. Rudd was leader on the basis that if he really believed climate change (or whatever it was being called then) was the greatest moral challenge of our time, then he would go to a DD election on this.

That's what he should have done. Instead he just backed down.
Tony Abbott would not back down on this.

Political suicide IMO. Runs the risk of Inds and Greens backlash vote and may end up MORE in the Senate. Possible as well. People of Australia may not want to go back to the polls so soon as well. More possible voter backlash.

Antony Green blog has the info I am looking for.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...uble-dissolution-in-the-next-three-years.html

 

[Logique]

Political suicide IMO.... People of Australia may not want to go back to the polls so soon as well. More possible voter backlash...

But perhaps not if he runs on it, declaring it well in advance.

 

[RandR]

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2796404.html

The above is a transcript of a speech from Malcolm Fraser.

"We might think our actions have no consequences beyond our shores. That is dangerous self deception.

Many examples can be given. Opponents of climate change legislation say Australia produces so little that it does not matter what we do. Many others, indeed most others, look at emissions per capita and then we come out if not worst, second worst.

These are but two quite different examples of the way in which actions that too many believe are purely domestic in their consequences resonate unfavourably for Australia around the world."

.... The fact is the Liberal party went to the 2007 election with the promise of bringing in an emissions trading scheme, why do people think voting in a liberal government would lead to the abandonment of such a scheme entirely ?

What, because Tony Abott says so ? The man has proven just as capable of backflipping on this issue as Julia Gillard. (it wasnt long ago he stated that he thought a tax on carbon was the most efficient method of producing results)

IMO, the best hope we have in Australia in terms of our future direction, is if one of Turnbull or Hockey wrest the liberal leadership from Abbot. I would vote for either of the two, but i cant bring myself to vote for someone like Abbot.

 

[Logique]

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2796404.html
The above is a transcript of a speech from Malcolm Fraser.
....The fact is the Liberal party went to the 2007 election with the promise of bringing in an emissions trading scheme...

But not in advance of the rest of the world, which John Howard has recently confirmed, and which Malcolm Fraser seems not to have mentioned. John Howard doesn't and never did support a carbon tax of the type now proposed by Labor/Greens.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The length of this industrial age from a long term perspective depends on a multiplying population (more births than deaths due to technology) and the depth of minerals on the planet to keep it going. 400 to 500 years maybe?

 

[Julia]

Many examples can be given. Opponents of climate change legislation say Australia produces so little that it does not matter what we do. Many others, indeed most others, look at emissions per capita and then we come out if not worst, second worst.

Are you aware that this emissions per capita includes all our exports? And bushfires etc?

.... The fact is the Liberal party went to the 2007 election with the promise of bringing in an emissions trading scheme, why do people think voting in a liberal government would lead to the abandonment of such a scheme entirely ?

The world was in a different frame of mind then. It was expected that Copenhagen would enshrine global co-operation of ETS schemes. It totally failed in this respect, and since then overall acceptance of "the science" has diminished.

Then the GFC has had severe effects in much of the world (even if we are just beginning to feel it here), and the appetite for any form of pricing carbon no longer exists in the major nations of China, US, Canada, Japan et al.

So for Australia to voluntarily put itself in a position of economic disadvantage re our competitors makes no sense.

 

[sails]

Here is Costello's say on Gillard's carbon tax from Bolt's show this morning.

 

[Calliope]

Here is Costello's say on Gillard's carbon tax from Bolt's show this morning.

Who was that obnoxiously servile reporter in the Canberra press gallery asking Gillard for advice on what to write?:bowdown: Thank God for The Australian

 

[springhill]

How about this tossbag on Meet The Press? Daaaangerous climate change oooooooo, scary stuff, these guys are in complete denial - ignoring that they are as popular as a flaming bag of dog **** on a door step.



Putting this anywhere near Peter Costello is a crime really.

 

[So_Cynical]

But not in advance of the rest of the world, which John Howard has recently confirmed, and which Malcolm Fraser seems not to have mentioned. John Howard doesn't and never did support a carbon tax of the type now proposed by Labor/Greens.

Just to follow this type of thinking thru...if all country's simply waited for others to lead then how would anything happen? funny how this appeals to so many coalition voters...the do nothing approach to government.

 

[RandR]

Are you aware that this emissions per capita includes all our exports? And bushfires etc?

I'm not, would you care to provide some evidence to this claim ?

Excluding any potential exclusion for exports/natural events etc, would you not agree that Australia would still have if not the highest, but be within the top 5 producers of emmisions per capita or per person ?

The world was in a different frame of mind then. It was expected that Copenhagen would enshrine global co-operation of ETS schemes. It totally failed in this respect, and since then overall acceptance of "the science" has diminished.

Acceptance of the science by whom ? By you ?

 

[springhill]

Just to follow this type of thinking thru...if all country's simply waited for others to lead then how would anything happen? funny how this appeals to so many coalition voters...the do nothing approach to government.

SC you are ignoring the fact we produce 1.3% of world's carbon emissions, and our target reduction by 2020 is 5%. That is 5% of 1.3%. We will piss away hundreds of billions to bring our emissions to 1.235% of world emissions.
The biggest polluters, if logic prevails, should introduce the best and most cost effective form of carbon reduction rather than an inefficient ineffective one as it's in their interests, financially. Let's follow the big boys.

Gillard thinks the rest of the world is watching us with admiration? The tertiary manufacturers will ignore us when we try to pass costs on, hey there are plenty of minerals coming onstream from Africa alone. Our direct competitors are wetting their pants laughing at us. The UN is rubbing it's filthy hands with glee at our idiocy.

 

[sails]

...Gillard thinks the rest of the world is watching us with admiration? The tertiary manufacturers will ignore us when we try to pass costs on, hey there are plenty of minerals coming onstream from Africa alone. Our direct competitors are wetting their pants laughing at us. The UN is rubbing it's filthy hands with glee at our idiocy.

And I think the rest of the world is looking on in bemusement at our stupidity. Here is a snippet from Costello's comments of his travels:

"I can confidently say that when I was in Europe I did not read of any other country being so moved by our government’s new tax on carbon dioxide as to embrace measures to harm their own industries.

At the meetings I had with investment managers in the US no one seemed to think there was any chance the US would adopt a cap-and-trade or emissions trading scheme.

I caught up separately with Condoleezza Rice and Sandy Berger (National Security Advisors in opposing administrations). Neither thought there was any chance of their party going down a path like that!"​

From the Herald Sun Bolt's Blog: No, the world isn’t watching our futile sacrifice

 

[So_Cynical]

SC you are ignoring the fact we produce 1.3% of world's carbon emissions, and our target reduction by 2020 is 5%. That is 5% of 1.3%. We will piss away hundreds of billions to bring our emissions to 1.235% of world emissions.
The biggest polluters, if logic prevails, should introduce the best and most cost effective form of carbon reduction rather than an inefficient ineffective one as it's in their interests, financially. Let's follow the big boys.

Gillard thinks the rest of the world is watching us with admiration? The tertiary manufacturers will ignore us when we try to pass costs on, hey there are plenty of minerals coming onstream from Africa alone. Our direct competitors are wetting their pants laughing at us. The UN is rubbing it's filthy hands with glee at our idiocy.

We are the biggest per capita carbon burners, 5% of 1.3% certainly sounds like an almost insignificant number and it is actually pretty much insignificant...so what's the big deal. :dunno:

The reduction target is small, the cost is small, the impacts on all levels small...and yet the lunatic right thinks the world is coming to an end...our competitors in Africa wetting there pants laughing at us, i think not, the Congolese Govt doesn't have the capacity to enforce basic road rules etc...their hardly laughing at anyone and there population would change places with us in an instant if offered the opportunity to live under a carbon tax.

 

[startrader]

I'm not, would you care to provide some evidence to this claim ?

This is quite true - you should do some research. It's a shame more people don't know this.

 

[joea]

Hi.
Julia Gillard made a statement that big companies pollute for free.
This is incorrect.
All companies that have a chimney and burn a product, or utilise water in some way pay a licence fee to "pollute".
The licence may not cover CO2, but it cover a number of emission listed by the EPA.

I will admit the fee may only be small, (15 years ago) $10,000 - $15000 per year for a small sugar mill, but there is a fee.
So her statement is incorrect.

Also any new boilers had to adhere to a reduction in the above licence by a factor of 8.
(So if your particulate emission was 800 milligrams/cubic metre, new boilers had to be below 100mlgms./cubic metre.
Stack test are regulary completed by a specilist to ensure boiler emissions are controlled.

joea p.s. glad I cleared that up.

 

[Ruby]

I'm not, would you care to provide some evidence to this claim ?


Excluding any potential exclusion for exports/natural events etc, would you not agree that Australia would still have if not the highest, but be within the top 5 producers of emmisions per capita or per person ?

RandR - do some reading. There are numerous references to this on the other threads - the Climate Hysteria one and the Carbon Tax Lie one. It was admitted by the Labour government that the 'per capita emission' figures included our exports - which of course makes a complete nonsense of the figures.

Acceptance of the science by whom ? By you ?

See above. I gave a reference on one of the other sites to 900 peer reviewed reports written by climate change sceptics. Also look at the Joanna Nova site. For goodness sake, inform yourself of the facts before you form your opinions!!

 

[springhill]

We are the biggest per capita carbon burners, 5% of 1.3% certainly sounds like an almost insignificant number and it is actually pretty much insignificant...so what's the big deal. :dunno:

The reduction target is small, the cost is small, the impacts on all levels small...and yet the lunatic right thinks the world is coming to an end...our competitors in Africa wetting there pants laughing at us, i think not, the Congolese Govt doesn't have the capacity to enforce basic road rules etc...their hardly laughing at anyone and there population would change places with us in an instant if offered the opportunity to live under a carbon tax.

We are a country the size of a continent, sheer logistics mean we will pollute on a higher per capita basis. We are not the size of Japan, Italy or NZ even. Our population isn't going to double in the next 100 years and with the industrialisation of Africa, China, India to name a few, i am betting others per capita pollution will rise and ours will stay stagnant.

The reduction target is small, the costs are huge and as i have stated before we will be purchasing tens of billions of dollars per annum overseas for the right to use our own resources, it's insanity. Not to mention the UN tax grab.

Don't worry SC once the Chinese start buying iron ore from the Congo, they will be wetting their pants laughing. That is the benefit of an emerging nation over one that is full of it's self importance. Meanwhile, i am sure that the Congo will be a recipient of our 10% carbon tax donation to the UN, to 'help' third world nations manage their carbon emissions. Geeeee i can't see any money going astray in the African nations, they are all so anti-corruption.

Humans contribute 3.8% of global carbon in the atmosphere, of that 3.8% we contribute 1.3% and of that 1.3% we want to reduce it by 5%. Do the maths and see how much that will change global atmosphere. It's absurd.

The US sure as hell aren't going to buy it.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=d5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6

I am not saying the world will end, but Australia will sure as hell have a sore foot from shooting itself.