Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 5455 comments are related to the topic:
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
THE CLIMATE CHANGE MYTH that Julia wants us all to pay for
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 5,455
|
By:
bigted
Welcome to the world Abbott you coal loving fossil fuel loving fking dinosaur,although I'm sure you loving fossil fuel burning companies money .. gillard the deceiver and the previous govt were coal loving tricksters themselves weren't they ? http://www.greatbarrierreef.org.au/margiris-highlights-gillards-failure/ It’s time the focus on the Labor Government‘s appalling sell-out of the environment is placed where it belongs. Squarely on the shoulders of PM Gillard. It’s all very well to be making nice speeches about education at the Press Club which have no funding to support the promises. But what about James Price Point ? What about the Great Barrier Reef ? What about Gladstone Harbor ? What about the Super Trawler ? What about the Alpha Coal Project and more destruction of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area ? What about the Humpback Whales and the marine creatures who depend on healthy oceans? Isn’t it time that Julia Gillard was questioned in depth about her government’s complete lack of environmental credentials ? |
|
By:
Dear oh dear,you sound like a hard right conservative minister...did u answer my question with a question..and with a put down of Julia ..that'll do me..
|
|
By:
hard left hard right hard left .. big deal
the truth is the hard left can't see the woods for the trees when making out that labor is the godsend for the environment the tricks showed through in the end ... with gillard .. that's when this thread commenced some 4 years ago |
|
By:
So it a myth then
 |
|
By:
so gillards co2 tax plan to stop coal ... was a trick then ... as she granted Gina approval for a brand new coal mine not 8 weeks after introducing her fake-for-the-environment tax ?
did gillard think it was a myth then by her actions ... maybe you should ask her ? |
|
By:
all i wanna know is.... if climate change is a myth
|
|
By:
if it is..carry on..if not,start an i hate Julia thread..this one is dead
|
|
By:
well read some peer reveiewed scientific journals if you want a scientific answer as is best assessment today
but you put up a post calling abbott out for being a "coal lover" ... you cast the assertion that abbott was a coal lover i pointed out that you were deceived by gillard into thinking labor were anti coal .. and that gillard was a coal over also all I I I I want to know is do you believe gillard tricked her party followers into thinking she was anti coal ? |
|
By:
she's not in politics any more Abbott is..
|
|
By:
anyway gotta cook dinner,thanks for answering my question
 |
|
By:
you made it sound that abbott was the ... only ... coal lover
i pointed out that gillard ... by her actions in govt ... was by your own definition a coal lover also pretty clear that this is ridiculous ... as a political discussion ... the left is correct and the right is wrong rubbish all that politico stuff should be on the nonsense threads imo |
|
By:
see ya ted
 |
|
By:
tony must be seething
After Tony Abbott did everything he could to keep discussion of climate change out of the G20, he has been ambushed almost on the eve of the weekend meeting. The Prime Minister did not have forewarning of the United States-China agreement on post-2020 emissions reductions, according to government sources. This is despite a meeting with Barack Obama on Monday – at which Obama made it clear he wanted a greater Australian commitment in Iraq. This climate deal is a big deal. Apart from its detail, it is designed to press other nations to produce their post-2020 targets early for next year’s United Nations climate conference in Paris. The US and China say in their joint announcement they hope to “inspire other countries to join in coming forward with ambitious actions as soon as possible, preferably by the first quarter of 2015”. This is not likely to be Australia’s preferred timetable. The US is committing to a target of cutting emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and “to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%”. China says it intends to peak its emissions around 2030 “and to make best efforts to peak early”. It also “intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030”. With Abbott on his way to Myanmar for the East Asia Summit, Environment Minister Greg Hunt issued the government’s response. It was brief and defensive. “We welcome the announcement by the United States and China to reduce or cap emissions. “The government is already delivering on Australia’s commitment to reduce emissions by 5% on 2000 levels by 2020. “We have always said that we will consider Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction targets in the lead up to next year’s Paris conference. This will take into account action taken by our major trading partners. “In the meantime, what’s important for Australia is that we have replaced Labor’s ineffective and costly carbon tax with a policy that will actually deliver significant emissions reductions,” Hunt said. Whether the American and Chinese ambitions will be delivered will only be known years on. But with the world’s two biggest emitters making a determined start, Abbott is left flat footed for the G20, and with a problem for Australia’s position for Paris. |
|
By:
well done China and the USA - good to see the world moving, just a shame we were up amongst the leaders - back in the pack now
 |
|
By:
do we get a medal or something womble?
Well done China??  but as Thebas correctly points out...CHINA gets free rein to burn what they want for another 16 years! predictions are a third more than now moving to 12.7 BILLION tons YEAR ON YEAR.....puts our savings of 5% in the shade, even if we get to 20% by sending untold wealth overseas it wont make a flysheet of difference, add to that fact india going upwards in usage as the country prospers , we are wasting our time The seppos wont be any certainty with the republicans threatening no deal.....seems the coal rich states wont be wanting restrictions whilst China does as it pleases...........IT AINT GUNNA HAPPEN spending untold sovereign wealth will not solve any warming period. finding alternatives MAY help but it seems a long way off. Being a leader here only costs your country big bucks whilst DOING NOTHING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT..... Best see what develops re new technologies, we can sit back and watch for free all the while plucking out the good from the bad. and womble foreign aid and cc don't belong in the same argument...give up on that we have nothing to compensate for....period |
|
By:
The whole argument about why the poorer countries in the world should be compensated is because they haven't had the chance to pollute as much as some of us have - fair enough I think.
Yes India and China will need more power but hopefully they'll get it via renewables - China setting a target around that is a good thing imo The key being the alternatives need to be paid for - where a carbon tax, ets or the like comes in. The economic costs of doing nothing will be much greater Heard an interesting figure that for us to match what China and the US came up with our target would be 30% of 2000 levels not 5% - we won't get that via "Direct Action" |
|
By:
i do agree the Republicans and self interest will get in the way BUT if it's all tied into trade it could still work
|
|
By:
thank goodness australia's 5% emissions reduction plan is well in advance of the chinese who plan to burn more and more coal and peak just before 203 ... 16 years ahead as secong pointed out (if it is exponential growth and why wouldn't it be then that is scary)
the economic advantage China (and India) will get during this period will dwarf europe and USA ... while australia will still be sought after for $$$$ by the UN unless sensible soevereign govts realise the trick being played on us the 3rd world have correctly been receiving ... foreign aid from us ... for the very same reason that the trick/fake co2 plan represents ... ie our advancing economies put us in a situation where we could afford & wanted to help those less fortunate the double whammy of foreign aid PLUS this co2 TRICK is wrong when you consider it is sovereign wealth and citizens hard earned that were planned to be 'given away' .. not some excess lump of billions of dollars that countries ahev locked away in a drawer for a rainy day india russia usa and china should pony up the foreign aid first as the largest emitters on the planet the UN want more money mainly for sub-saharan africa (ie not egypt libya and the oil countries up north) the UN originally wanted (as per their website) to introduce back in the 80's two global taxes to help the 3rd world 1. a currency transaction tax 2. a fossil fuel tax well have a guess what .. the global banking filthy rorters got so rich & powerful and they were so many of them in their own personal Ponzi game ... that they BLEW UP their own game ... but didn't chip in one bit of foreign aid through a currency transaction tax ... not one fkn penny in fact in the US they cried poor from the GFC result and got a BAIL OUT from the citizens - you must be fkn kiddin me the UN pushed on with the fossil fuel tax which morphed into the co2 game ... but we know now as the science has moved forward properly that methane must be considered also ie a tax on agriculture the bankers need to pony up but they support the ETS (not a currency tax where the filth are trading on the currency exchange to the tune of trillions per day to extract via bots 0.001 of a cent through artificial movement of exchange rates ie gambling) there has to be another way ... but 2030 will come around pretty quick i reckon |
|
By:
where would the world be if China said they'd stop polluting tomorrow? in a good place environmentally maybe but screwed economically
i'd like them to be moving quicker but it's good they're moving at all world wide solution needed and a real chance next year in Paris now - hopefully |
|
By:
China-US Climate Deal Means The Jig Is Up For Abbott's Deniers
 By Ben Eltham newmatilda .com.au The climate change debate shifted dramatically overnight. And Australia has been left high and dry. Ben Eltham explains. Yesterday was a momentous day for Australian politics. Just how momentous has not yet been realised, and probably won’t become clear for many years. But there can be no doubt of the significance of the US-China emissions reduction deal. The decision by the world’s two largest economies to set sweeping new emissions reductions targets is a symbolic step of historic proportions. That symbolism is, of course, acutely embarrassing for Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who did everything in his power to keep climate change and the environment off the agenda for this week’s G20 summit in Brisbane. Now, as Michelle Grattan accurately observes, Abbott has been ambushed on the eve of the meeting. No amount of uneasy rhetoric can cover up the government's discomfort. This is a pact between the US and China, the two elephants in the room that even Abbott cannot ignore. As President Obama said yesterday, “as the world’s two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change.” Leaving aside the symbolism, the targets agreed to are important too. The US emissions reduction target, of a cut of 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025, is a huge advance on that committed to by Australia. To achieve parity with the US target by 2025, Australia would need to cut our emissions by something like 28-31 per cent. A reduction of that scale is essentially impossible under current policies. With the carbon price abolished and the RET threatened, most experts think we won’t even make our current target of a 5 per cent cut by 2020. Australia’s emissions are now rising again in the wake of the carbon tax’s abolition, and the Abbott government’s Direct Action policy is nothing but an expensive joke. That’s not to say the US-China deal is perfect. Critics have rushed to decry it, claiming that it is an empty promise. And there are indeed many challenges to effective climate action. The number one barrier remains the US Republican Party. The United States has just elected a cohort of climate denialist Republicans to Congress that make the IPA look like a bunch of hippies. Republicans dominate the House of Representatives and the Senate. Noted denialist James Inhofe is likely to chair a powerful Senate committee on the environment. Even with a Democrat in the White House, there seems little hope of US legislation to force national emissions reductions in America. But Congress is not the only player in US politics. State-level carbon policies such as California’s emissions trading scheme are accelerating, and Obama has shown he is prepared to use his executive powers to regulate fossil fuel emissions under the Clean Air Act. Whatever the politics, US emissions are themselves falling. What about China? The implications for Australia of Chinese willingness to address fossil fuel emissions are, if anything, even more significant. There can now be no doubt that China means to move towards decarbonisation. Indeed, some of the criticism of the deal has amounted to the argument that, because the Chinese are already winding back their fossil fuel consumption and moving towards renewables, the announcement by President Xi Jinping is no more than business as usual. But business as usual already implies a big shift away from fossil fuels. In recent years China has introduced an emissions trading scheme in several of its largest provinces, slapped a tariff on coal imports, closed many polluting factories and power plants, and ploughed billions into green technologies. With massive Chinese investment in renewables already underway, this announcement shows China plans to dominate global cleantech industries, rather than follow. Chinese demand for coal could halve by 2020. Meanwhile, India’s government has recently signaled it may end coal imports within three years. The economic implications for Australia are profound. After the runaway mining boom of the last decade, Australia’s economy is now heavily dependent on resource wealth. With our services industries underperforming, Australia is staring to resemble a third world economy, locked into rust-belt industries. Just this week, for instance, Joe Hockey admitted that the falling global iron ore price will wipe billions off the federal budget’s bottom line. The huge potential impact of Chinese decarbonisation on Australian commodity exports shows once and for all the short-sighted folly of the Abbott government’s attempts to leave climate off the G20 agenda. Climate will be the defining trend of the global economy in coming decades. When Abbott and Hockey argue that the environment is somehow not an economic issue, they are recklessly jeopardising the future of Australian living standards. The political implications of the Sino-American emissions deal are just as important. Internationally, they leave Abbott’s climate denialism looking increasingly isolated. Domestically, the deal signals the beginning of the end of conservative Australia’s anti-climate charade. Put simply, the jig is up. Australian politicians and voters can no longer stop the gathering momentum for global decarbonisation. All we can do is further delay the inevitable, making the eventual adjustment more painful. While the self-deluded will continue to tell each other comforting lies, the rest of the world no longer cares. Conservatives can continue to pretend that climate change isn’t happening, or that the world is not doing something about it. But that won’t change the facts of the matter. The tide is going out on climate denialism, and the swimmers at the beach have forgotten their speedos. Carbon politics in Australia has a long and ignoble backstory, which is all the more tragic for how unnecessary it has been. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Conservative Party has had relatively little difficulty squaring its political philosophies with the pricing of pollution. Carbon has not been turned into an anti-left crusade in Britain. As a consequence, in the run up to next year’s election, climate is one of the few political issues that the Cameron government doesn’t have to worry about. In Australia, under the doleful influence of mining billionaires and the right-wing think tanks they fund, climate has been turned into a conservative litmus test: a banner issue in which right-wingers test each other for ideological purity. The result is the most viscerally anti-environment federal government in 40 years. Only a fool would believe this is in the best interests of the nation. It’s not even in the best interests of the Liberal Party. Carbon will be a big issue at the next election, as the Coalition may find to its chagrin. The hard truth is that the world will act on climate. It may not be enough action, and it may be too late to save the biosphere as we know it, but there will be action. Indeed, the impending ecological catastrophe will only make future economic adjustment more wrenching. If Australia believes we can go it alone as a high-polluting, high carbon economy at the bottom of the world, our trading partners will soon rudely awaken us. Quite simply, Australia’s mining wealth is becoming irrelevant. Advancing technology and policy change will see fossil fuel assets stranded on a currently unimaginable scale. Only a government utterly beholden to the interests of the resources sector can turn away from the writing on the wall. Tony Abbott shouldn’t have too much trouble recognising this, because he never really cared about climate change in the first place. Unlike the die-hard denialists on his back bench, Abbott has only ever seen climate as a vehicle for personal ambition. Indeed, if the government wasn’t so ideologically wedded to stamping out the heresy of climate, it could follow the Climate Change Authority’s advice and reduce 'Australian' emissions quickly and cheaply by buying up billions of foreign carbon credits. Instead, it is still trying to abolish the Climate Change Authority. The Abbott government now has two choices. It can continue the charade, pretending that its risible Direct Action subsides can somehow buy emissions reductions, all the while pandering to the hard right and the mining billionaires. Or it can recognise the painful reality, which is that while carbon was a handy tactic to demolish a Labor government, Australia can no longer afford a government signed up to the denialist |
|
By:
The climate change debate shifted dramatically overnight.
And Australia has been left high and dry. Ben Eltham explains. ben eltham from newmatilda ffs left high and dry (good pun Ben )australia currently has a 5% emissions reduction target ben ... china are expanding their coal based energy resource and won't even PEAK until 2030 ... ben the jig is up ben .. you have been hoodwinked again now let's get serious ... who has an article on what B E N wrote when ... gillard granted a brand new coal mine for gina in Alpha qld not 8 weeks after introducing her fake-for-the-environment co2 tax that in her memoirs she reckons she should have called a (fake-for-the-environment) ETS my guess is .... N O T H I N G ... just party politico nonsense from the left wing ragster the jig is up ben ... some great explanation ... ie hasn't a clue  |
|
By:
To achieve parity with the US target by 2025, Australia would need to cut our emissions by something like 28-31 per cent.
A reduction of that scale is essentially impossible under current policies. With the carbon price abolished and the RET threatened, most experts think we won’t even make our current target of a 5 per cent cut by 2020. Australia’s emissions are now rising again in the wake of the carbon tax’s abolition, and the Abbott government’s Direct Action policy is nothing but an expensive joke. Championing InDirect Inaction to achieve 5% How many billions is the taxpayer paying the biggest polluters every year to pollute freely? In order to try and achieve 5% ? How will Indirect Action achieve 30% and how much will we pay the biggest polluters to try? |
|
By:
US-China emissions deal puts extreme pressure on Australia to do more
To match the scale of cuts announced by US, Australia would have to reduce emissions by about 30% on 2000 levels by 2025 Lenore Taylor, political editor theguardian.com, Wednesday 12 November 2014 Australia is under intense pressure to announce a target for post-2020 greenhouse gas reductions after the shock announcement from US president Barack Obama and Chinese premier Xi Jinping of new national climate change goals. The US has agreed to cut its emissions by 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2025 – a doubling of the pace of its reductions. If Australia were to make similar cuts by 2025 against its 2000 benchmark, it would need to reduce emissions by between 28% and 31%. Asked where the deal left Australia’s climate change policy, the expert adviser to the former government Professor Ross Garnaut said: “Exactly where it was before the US-China announcement – up **** creek.” Australia has so far said only that it would “consider its post-2020 target as part of the review … in 2015 on Australia’s international targets and settings”, taking into account what trading partners promise, and has been strongly resisting discussion of climate change at the G20 on the grounds that the meeting should focus on its central economic agenda. It has not announced how it will determine its post-2020 target, nor when it will make it public. The environment minister, Greg Hunt, responded to the announcement by repeating this position: “We have always said that we will consider Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction targets in the leadup to next year’s Paris conference. This will take into account action taken by our major trading partners. “In the meantime, what’s important for Australia is that we have replaced Labor’s ineffective and costly carbon tax with a policy that will actually deliver significant emissions reductions.” China, the world’s largest greenhouse emitter, has now agreed its emissions will peak by 2030 at the latest, and then begin to decline. China had previously only ever agreed to reduce the rate at which its greenhouse emissions were increasing. It has also agreed that 20% of China’s energy should come from zero emissions sources by 2030. Australian politicians have often cited increasing emissions from China as evidence that it is futile for Australia to take stronger action on climate change. As reported by Guardian Australia, Australia has reluctantly conceded the final G20 communique should include climate change, but has been resisting a last-ditch push by the US, France and other European countries for the leaders gathering in Brisbane this weekend to endorse contributions to the Green Climate Fund – as they did last year in St Petersburg. The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and, along with individual national emission reduction pledges, is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal in Paris. It is understood the G20 communique’s references to climate change have been expanded as negotiators finalise the text in the lead-up to the weekend meeting. A spokesman for the Climate Institute think tank, Erwin Jackson, said Australia was “looking like it has been caught with its pants down on climate change action”. The Labor leader, Bill Shorten, said that “while the United States and China show global leadership, Tony Abbott is sticking his head in the sand”. “At the G20 this week, Australia will hold the embarrassing title of being the only nation going backwards on climate change,” he said. The Climate Institute has calculated Australia should be looking at a 40% reduction by 2025. The government’s Direct Action climate policy to reduce emissions with $2.5bn worth of competitive government grants to businesses and organisations is intended to meet the target of cutting Australia’s greenhouse gases by 5% by 2020. Europe has already indicated a 2030 target of at least 40% below 1990 levels. The calculation of a 40% cut by 2030 is broadly in line with the findings of the independent Climate Change Authority, which recommended Australia reduce emissions by 40% to 60% below 2000 levels in 2030. Garnaut said the government should allow the authority, with its excellent professional staff, to provide recommendations on Australia’s post-2020 target, but it would need to be “comparable with the US for Australia to be seen to be doing its fair share”. Greens leader Christine Milne said Tony Abbott was “so busy unwinding Australia’s climate policies that he failed to notice the global economy is changing around him. He is risking billions of dollars in investment and thousands of jobs. Tony Abbott is engaging in intergenerational theft while the rest of the world moves to protect future generations and the planet. “Until the Abbott government took control, Australia was a world leader in climate policy with an emissions trading scheme that was considered template legislation for other nations,” she said. |
|
By:
Abbott what an embarrassment he is.
With his FAKE I BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE The biggest lie ever told in Australian politics POLICY OF BEING SEEN TO DO SOMETHING BUT DOING NOTHING AND WRECKING THE RET THEY AGREED TO HAS BEEN EXPOSED FOR THE TOTAL LIE IT WAS. HE IS A DISGRACE AND HE IS WRECKING THE JOINT. |
|
By:
why would we be pressured to do what the USA & China are doing ?
does anyone understand the levels of emmissions by country back in 2010 ... and the biggest emitters are a lot bigger now ... so YES they should plan to cut dramatically .... china have stated they will peak & reduce in 16 years ... and the USA will start there's right around their next presedential election lol (2016) china 10385 usa 6866 india 2326 russia 2326 japan brazil germany indonesia iran canada (726) mexico sth korea UK australia 587 this pressure applied from outside our country on our behaviour is misdirected & misguided ... both our major political parties have the same 5% reduction target which is quite exceptional really considering how little we emit as a country ... and certainly when compared to mexico, indonesia, brazil all who have no reduction plan that i can find but i am in awe of the Chinese Plan (joking ) they're planning and have advised the world they will be burning more and more and more co2 and plan to have their PEAK EMISSIONS hit around 2030 ... extraordinary  |
|
By:
oh yes .. those figures supplied by ... theguardian.com
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jul/16/australia-carbon-tax-emissions |
|
By:
Indeed, if the government wasn’t so ideologically wedded to stamping out the heresy of climate, it could follow the Climate Change Authority’s advice and reduce 'Australian' emissions quickly and cheaply by buying up billions of foreign carbon credits
what a complete left wing loony we have here......just keep burning as you please.....but spend untold amounts on CREDITS and all will be well........(umm how do credits make a difference when there are too many in existence)might buy myself a fancy printer and print up a few and get good 'ol ALGae to help me sell them ffs in the meantime who gives a flying about the environment....Julia didn't that's for sure she was happy to send billions OS without telling a soul...nor did Greg after the Cancun junket Do the maths, Oz at 587m tons,projected saving of 5% = rounded 30m tons , 28% - 176m tons = so lets say the difference is 146m tons and billions and billions of $ to achieve China 10385 AND HAVENT REACHED PEAK YET FOR ANOTHER 16 YEARS (MAYBE!!!) So lets say they go up by 5% between now and 2030 5% = 515 EXTRA PER YEAR * 16 years = 8 BILLION yes BILLION MORE CO2 in the atmosphere...all the while Oz has been reducing by 5% not emitting EXTRA.. so summing up we get to spend billions on worthless credits to save what the tricksters want (and trade) 16* 146m tons = 2.3 billion whilst the Chinese and (others as Thebas has pointed out) have free rein and spend not a cent to BURN MORE...in effect we are subsidising the chinese and others to burn MORE RORT OF THE HIGHEST ORDER BAR NONE! Now if someone came up with something that would actually reduce emissions in real time (not worthless credits) AND keep the $$$ within their own country.....you'd be on a WINNER And womble foreign aid IS foreign aid.....just because we did something LEGALLY doesn't mean anyone needs compensating.....btw with your proposed idea...and these poor countries got untold billions (under careful scrutiny) wouldn't they be building big cities like china and come into the new age? AND BURN MORE IN THE PROCESS BTW you are not making any sense your last few posts....posting any excuse on the fly SHAME ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT THATS FOR SURE WITHOUT DOUBT THE BIGGEST RORT IN THE HISTORY OF MAN AND BACKED BY BRAINWASHED LEFTY SHEEP |
|
By:
How many billions are we the tax payers donating to the biggest polluters in the hope they reduce their emmissions?
What penalty do they pay if they don't ? Will they repay our money if they don't? 5 Billion???? 6 billion???? 9 billion ???? Indierct Inaction |
|
By:
Biggest con in australian political history....... delivered by the biggest con man in australian political history
|
|
By:
so lets get this straight
TA will pay polluters IF and ONLY if they reduce emissions - net result less emissions ....or static and no money spent if none achieved...I think the figure is about 2.3 billion btw again your idea...let them burn without question but just hand over more untold billions overseas (via your banker mates) in return for nothing more than fancy pieces of paper where nothing is happening and proven to be fraudulent and massive over supply of these "credits" there zero reduction in emissions on one hand a reduction at the point of supply......(net result genuine emission reduction) or hand over billions and burn as long and hard as you want in return for dodgy credits...(net result...planet no change) are you retarded or what?? encouraging more burn....AFL on a crusade to save the planet...... I THINK NOT...its all about the money and left wing agendas...you are encouraging burn SHAME ON YOU |
|
By:
There is another thread that's crying for your input
|
|
By:
lol waste of time....stick to the original factual one...well from thebas and i..the rest is a rort
|
|
By:
bottom line...direct action is what it says....no reduction no money....its in place regardless of what our leader says
|
|
By:
on the other hand you and womble want to send the country broke and send all our money OS for no net result for the planet...give yourself an uppercut you unpatriotic #&*%'s!
|
|
By:
AFL
Biggest con in australian political history....... delivered by the biggest con man in australian political history .. that's the trouble AFL .. its your one-eyed bias avoiding the facts you fail to acknowledge agree and even consider that your beloved political party can ever do anything shifty or plain wrong the biggest con artist ever was ... gillard but you won't even consider it maybe you can hopefully & finally understand what a trickster (and coal lover) and deceiver she was ... please revisit the ABC interview that neither you nor Ben Eltham bothered to cover or even discuss i mean you cant accuse Christine Milne ... of being a misogynist .. can you here is the link again http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3693980.htm CHRISTINE MILNE: We signed an agreement which had very clearly (stated) that we'd worked together in the public interest, that we would work together to address climate change and to bring transparency to the parliamentary process and Labor had walked away from that by basically choosing the mining industry rather than working with the Greens ... that's it .. that was labor and that was gillard from her co-joined govt partners (NOT the opposition ... NOT the murdoch press ffs ... but those that worked with her in a joint govt arrangment) |
|
By:
It's not about sending the country broke ffs it's about using the money raised to pay to establish alternatives and compensate those that need it
No one does I hear you say? just wait until you see the potential numbers of environmental refugees - will be many times as many as there are other types Like i said, i'd like to see China doing more but we'd all be screwed if they went to straight to cuts - it's good they set a stopping point and renewables targets though. Hopefully they do even better once the world gets together and acts And while it's well and good to talk raw numbers I don't think per capita contribution to the problem should be ignored - we're right up there when you look at it that way. Do we really have a right to be so much dirtier than others??? |
|
By:
per capita contribution is a non goer womble ... an economists trick which means nothing really
for example ... does the atmosphere know or care who generates the co2 emissions or where they come from it's the total amount in the atmosphere that is the greenhouse problem .. focus on that and we're on the same page and let's no go down the its not only co2 that is an issue path in relation to other greenhouse agricultural gases and importantly ... what would you reckon the left wing one-eyeds would have said about abbott ... if his plan was to ... increase the amount of co2 emissions over and over until 2030 when we would then stop .. drop our 5% emission reduction target and just churn out as much as we can get away with for 16 years because we pledge to stop then ? the lefties would be apoplectic over abbott (with their own party having no clue either as to what will work or what wont) .. but in the failure to look at the whole picture from a non party political viewpoint people applaud china beggars belief but the whole game is a trick as far as i've ben able to satisfy for myself and i have no confidence in a political solution to the greenhouse gases ... we need a scientific breakthrough at an emissions stage or at a capture stage .. or change completely our primary energy source coal will be around for a lot longer than people think for example a recent energy report https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/global-energy-system-under-stress-162358597.html With fossil fuels set to meet most of the increased global demand for energy, the IEA warned on Wednesday that climate change targets are at risk and conflicts could still wreak havoc with supplies. "The global energy system is in danger of falling short of the hopes and expectations placed upon it," the International Energy Agency said in its World Energy Outlook 2014 report. The Paris-based body, which advises industrial oil consuming nations, forecasted global energy demand will grow 37 percent by 2040, with fossil fuels key to meeting that increased demand despite concerns about global warming. ---- if they don;t want nuclear en masse (thorium the way to go, tho still has waste - about half the waste and half the waste-life of uranium based) then this wont have a happy ending in my lifetime |
|
By:
let the sun shine in Thebas, let the sun shine
i dare say climate change will get a mention when it heads towards 40 up your way on Sunday |
|
By:
when it heads towards 40 up your way on Sunday
excellent womble ... so you finally agree that when the sun comes out in summer the weather gets warmer a breakthrough |
|
By:
secong i missed that one ... very well spotted
Ben Eltham newmatilda.com.au Indeed, if the government wasn’t so ideologically wedded to stamping out the heresy of climate, it could follow the Climate Change Authority’s advice and reduce 'Australian' emissions quickly and cheaply by buying up billions of foreign carbon credits this absolute halfwitted numbskull sat down one night and wrote a full A4 size piece of junk that he used to define his position on something firstly he sat back and applauded china for telling the world to get stuffed ... and that for the next 15-16 years they will exponentially increase their co2 emmissions to satisfy the energy needs of their growing country and by 2030 they will have reached their peak - and then let us know what they will do next and in the same article he tells australia to use ... billions of our dollars to buy foreign carbon credits from the global investment bankers who bought 80% of all credits at the euro auctions back when - and are stuck with them here's the latest goss on euro and those foreign junk bond subprime credits https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/euro-stock****luggish-eurozone-032503011.html Official data showed France and Germany only narrowly avoided a new recession in the third quarter, while the broader 18-nation eurozone also faced anaemic growth. "There is a clear message that much work still needs to be done to stimulate the flagging eurozone economy," said analyst Mike McCudden at online broker Interactive Investor. "The euro will no doubt remain under pressure as investors anticipate fresh stimulus intended to drag the region out of the mire." ... well done Ben |