More thread: let’s talk climate politics down under

Sorry guys, but personal matters keep me from blogging. so more thread for discussion. Let’s talk about the state of politics in Australia. Some food for thought:

Clive Hamilton has a great essay on The Conversation on why Australia’s politicians have turned their backs on the climate change issue:

The truth is the Australian public does not know what it wants its government to do on climate change. A large majority wants it to do something, but the government seems to lose support whenever it does anything. The only notable exception (and perhaps because many people don’t know it exists) is the Renewable Energy Target, first introduced by the Howard Government as a sop to public anxiety. For any political leader unwilling to exercise leadership on the issue, trying to respond to climate change leaves them uncertain which way to turn

Which is all the more interesting as Australia has experienced it’s hottest 12 month period:

It’s official, the past 12 months have been the hottest in Australia for more than a hundred years. Temperatures averaged across Australia between September 2012 and August 2013 were hotter than any year since good records began in 1910. The previous record was held by the 12-month period from February 2005 to January 2006.

While Tony Abbott has stated he will abandon emissions targets:

Amid its bitter campaign against the carbon price the Coalition has  maintained one significant foundation – ”we may hate the method, but we will  achieve the same outcome”.

That outcome is at least a 5 per cent cut to emissions by decade’s end on  2000 levels, and more ambitious reductions if the world takes actions to curb  climate change. These targets have enjoyed bipartisan support for about five  years.

But in his National Press Club address on Monday, Tony Abbott has cast doubt  on his commitment to these goals. And he has lifted the lid on one of the  fundamental risks of his ”direct action” alternative to an emissions trading  scheme.

Abbott told the audience the Coalition would not increase its spending on  cutting carbon dioxide under direct action, even if its efforts were going to  fall short of what is needed to meet the 2020 target.

”The bottom line is we will spend as much as we have budgeted, no more and  no less. We will get as much environmental improvement, as much emissions  reduction as we can for the spending that we’ve budgeted,” he said.

Such is the state of politics down under.

I’ll be honest, not having to take an active part in the debate the moment is a blessing.

Note: remember to keep the debate friendly, I’ll be watching comments closely.

159 thoughts on “More thread: let’s talk climate politics down under

  1. Bill Jamison says:

    It seems the same scientist making that claim had to withdraw a paper recently on the same subject. Interesting….

    • john byatt says:

      bill forgot to tell you that it is now resubmitted,,,, interesting

      • Bill Jamison says:

        So you’re saying the paper never got published. Yes it is interesting.

        Hopefully they learned from their very public mistakes.

        I wonder if his current claims are any more accurate.

      • J Giddeon says:

        Yep resubmitted and again under review apparently.

        The first time around the peer reviewers failed to find the errors in the paper and it was finally discovered by Steve McIntyre and his team.

        Perhaps it’d save time if the journal skipped a few steps and just gave it straight to ClimateAudit to find out what else is wrong with it.

        But I do hope it passes muster this time. After all it cost the Aust taxpayer $300 grand to find out that temps in the mid 13th Century were a whole 1 tenth of one degree cooler than the 1960-1989 average! I wonder how the flora and fauna survived that massive temperature increase.

    • Rodger the Dodger says:

      “It seems the same scientist making that claim”

      Wrong. The study you are referring is from the University of Melbourne and is about temps over the last 1,000 years.

      The fact that Australia has had the hottest 12 months on record is from temperatures recorded by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Totally different.

      “I wonder if his current claims are any more accurate.”
      The University of Melbourne is not making the claim, the BOM is. It is totally accurate. Stop making these totally undeserved accusations.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        Rodger did you read the article linked in the post? It’s says:

        “in late June this year, our scientific study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters showed human-caused climate change substantially increased the likelihood of the very hot 2013 Australian summer.”

        The author of that article is the same scientist so it IS the same scientist making the claim. Now maybe the claim is backed up by the Australian BOM but what I posted is accurate and correct.

        • Rodger the Dodger says:

          Did you read the media release that this post “MORE THREAD: LET’S TALK CLIMATE POLITICS DOWN UNDER” is about?
          It is here

          and here

          Did you notice that it is from the BOM and NOT Melbourne University?

          So when you said “It seems the same scientist making that claim had to withdraw a paper recently on the same subject.” You are wrong.

          The BOM says that Australia has had the hottest 12 months on record and nowhere in the media release does it attribute it to human caused climate change.They are just stating the facts.

          The paper you are referring to is about ” claiming that temperatures in the last 60 years were warmest in the last 1,000 years”. Totally different!!

          You are trying to smear one set of facts with a retracted scientific study. Your tactics are not going to work!!

        • Bill Jamison says:

          I read the story linked in the blog post:

          The scientist that had to retract the paper wrote that article as I said. Not sure how you can be unclear about that. I followed a link in the blog post and commented on that link. Simple huh?

  2. john byatt says:

    all out attacks on the greens this year.

    a quasi liberal party under the name of stop the greens running in the senate

  3. john byatt says:

    a coalition of deniers about to govern

  4. uknowispeaksense says:

    It seems that the direct non action plan in its current state will result in an increase in emissions of 16% by 2020. In esseina Rinhart will be paid to pollute more which will work well for her and other miners, given Abbott’s intention to unprotect large sections of the Great Barrier Reef allowing more ships, not to mention his plan to allow her ANDEV solution, remove protection on Tasmanian forests, get rid of most environemental checks and balances on new mining lease applications, open up coal seam fracking in agricultural areas etc etc etc.

  5. Sou says:

    Since the thread has “Politics” in the title – there’s a new independent candidate in the mix for Sophie Mirabella’s seat at Indi – Cathy McGowan. I’ve met her (and have worked with her briefly – and worked on a committee with her sister, who’s also a terrific person) and she’d be a darned sight better than Sophie. And she’s a local.

    Fingers crossed, though it’s a big ask.

  6. J Robinson says:

    Stupid is as stupid does and Australian’s are an incredibly stupid mob when it comes to issues on climate change. It just does not seem to register the impact of climate change is a far greater impost than money spent on acting to reduce our emissions. A big deal is being made of our carbon tax putting up the cost of living but the bigger ticket item is the annual fire levy of $140 and exorbitant rises in insurance costs for those living in flood planes and areas likely to be affected by sea level rises. The mining lobby is ever powerful and its way it seems must prevail. Sadly the ordinary punter believes the bull dust that is being spanned by pro mining politicians like Abbott. When and how will we ever learn that we have to change how we do things.

  7. uknowispeaksense says:

    Having lived in the Indi electorate for awhile, I have been watching the battle that is building down there and with a bit of luck, Cathy McGowan, the independent will be ejecting the moronic Mirabella. Recent developments include plenty of negative coverage in the local paper of Cathy’s opponents which hint that there is an orchestrated campaign of destroying or stealing her election corflutes. The former National party member plus 40 high profile members of the community including former mayors and prominent business people and professionals have signed open letters in local papers endorsing Cathy and many are actively campaigning for her.

    The removal of Mirabella is crucial regardless of which side wins. She is dill of the highest order andif she wins her seat and the coalition wins, she will be the minister for science/inovation or whatever the portfolio will be called. In 2012, as the shadow minister for science, she rose in parliament 51 times and mentioned the word “science” only three times. No mention of science policies, funding or advancements. It is an astounding record. Can you imagine if the minister for defence didn’t speak about the army or if the minister for aged care didn’t speak about retirees?

    Mirabella also has no formal qualifications in science…or anything worthwhile as farasi can tell yet she will be handed one of the most important portfolios, not just for climate research, but all scientific research including medical, agricultural etc. For me, this just confirms that the conservatives don’t hold any science in a very high regard at all. They are a joke.

    The most interesting thing I have found though is the disconnect between the Nationals executive and their parliamentarians and primary producers. The people who they claim to represent are already feeling the effects of climate change with the National Farmers Federation recently describing climate change as one of the most important issues facing primary producers, yet still the farmers vote for the Nat’s. The mind boggles.

  8. uknowispeaksense says:

    More on Indi… When even a News Ltd publication is saying Mirabella may lose…..

    I’d ignore what they are saying about how many Victorian seats are likely to go whichever way. That is based on a newspoll of 150 people on landlines only, in those electorates.

  9. Dr No says:

    From the Australian’s Editorial on “independent journalism”:

    “…The true mark of independence is the quality of the journalism and the reputation of its practitioners. The bylines of Paul Kelly, John Durie, Hedley Thomas, Cameron Stewart and scores of other writers in The Australian are sufficient guarantees of fearless independence, names for which any adjective would be superfluous.”

    I bet they wrote it while laughing their guts out.

    • john byatt says:

      I can see them now “independence” hahaha what a effin good one, how about fearless?, classic, who is writing this shit?, we are ,

  10. john byatt says:

    BOTH Labor and the Coalition are almost certain to gain two Queensland Senate seats each, with the flows of preferences from minor parties to determine the outcome of the final two spots on Saturday.

    That was the prediction from Australian National University political expert Professor John Wanna on how the Queensland Senate race will play out.

    He said he didn’t think either Labor or the LNP would get a third Senate seat in Queensland, with the entrance of Palmer’s United Party and Katter’s Australian Party to be instrumental to the outcome.

    Prof Wanna also said the prospect of The Greens getting a second Senate was remote, with it likely the two new Queensland parties to fight it out over the final two spots.

    The election of the six senators in Queensland is likely to be one of the most complex tasks for the Australian Electoral Commission this weekend, with 82 candidates nominated for the spots.

    Prof Wanna said if Katter’s Australian Party was able to get all those who vote for it in the lower house to vote the same way in the Senate, it might put it in the running for a Senate seat.

    But more likely was the election of former rugby prop Glenn Lazarus to the Senate for Palmer’s United Party, with polls putting the party at a likely 8%.

    Prof Wanna said while Labor preferences would flow to KAP, both KAP and PUP had an equal chance at picking up the final seat if the Coalition brought home three of the six seats

  11. Dr No says:

    While this may be more suited to the previous topic on naming cyclons/hurricanes/disasters etc. it is well worth posting here. It is from the Introduction to a new book Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change, by Bob Carter and John Spooner, with Bill Kininmonth, Martin Feil, Stewart Franks and Bryan Leyland.

    They write:
    “What of the establishment activists, and their media supporters, who have so vilified a group of honest, brave and experienced scientists for merely staying true to the empirical values of their profession? Who will vindicate the sullied reputations of, to name but a few antipodean names: Michael Asten, Bob Carter, Chris de Freitas, David Evans, Stewart Franks, William Kininmonth, Bryan Leyland, Jennifer Marohasy, John McLean, Joanne Nova, Garth Paltridge, Ian Plimer, Peter Ridd and Walter Starck? And the same question applies also for economists like Henry Ergas, Martin Feil, David Murray and others, who have dared to suggest that the Stern and Garnaut reviews were a travesty on both scientific and economic grounds, and that the carbon dioxide pricing/taxing emperor actually has no clothes.”

    Yes – you did read that correctly – “..honest, brave and experienced scientists..”

    If qualifications in climate science is a guide then I would use the word “stupid”.
    If personal attacks on established, hard-working, honest scientists is a guide, I would use the word “puerile”.
    If publishing in Quadrant, the Australian etc. without engaging in debate is a guide, I would use the word “cowardly”.
    If publication record is a guide, I would use the word “clueless”.
    If you are an economist, I would use the word “astrologist”.
    If you have been retired for over a decade, I suggest a retirement home and a warm rug.
    If your university has moved you on, the word I would use is “thick” – since you obviously do not know how to behave like a professional scientist.
    If you still feel paranoid….. sorry, I cannot help you.

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      It’s good of Bob et al to list those they regard as “honest, brave and experienced” because in 50 years time people will be able to read back through that list of names and scorn them for the damage they and their ilk will have inflicted on the Earth in their perpetuation of their distorted, dishonest, cowardly and unscientific attacks on science for personal gain and notoriety. They disgust me as do the ignorant, idiotic supporters of their stupid ideology. I hope their future descendents are equally disgusted.

  12. john byatt says:

    The coming disaster

    This election has heard no end of debate about Australia’s budget deficit; meanwhile, an environmental disaster looms that will cause us much more financial pain, writes Mike Steketee.

    • Bill Jamison says:

      Nothing Australia does regarding emissions will have a measurable impact on global climate. 20 million people out of 7 billion is not even going to register on the most sensitive indicators.

      • J Giddeon says:

        A nation that contributes less than 2% of global co2e emissions and which (at best) reduces those emissions by 5% will have no discernible affect on anything. But that’s the beauty of the whole scheme. If you can’t measure the changes then you can make any outlandish claims of success and never be proven wrong.

        The warm inner glow of saving the planet with none of the pain… doesn’t get better than that.

    • FrankD says:

      “This election has heard … little about the environmental deficit that we are accumulating and that will take much longer to pay off.”

      Interesting that Steketee can write like this as a freelance, but never published anything of the sort when he was national affairs editor at the Australian.

      But Rupert doesn’t tell his journos what to write, oh my goodness me no.

  13. Bernard J. says:

    Forgive me for including a head-vice link (though not to the original site), but I couldn’t let this pass…

    Someone called John Happ has composed a screed for Quadrant which is essentially a libelous spray at James Hansen, and including the meme that one cannot simultaneously be a scientist and an activist and retain scientific credibility:

    This is apparently what passes for intellectual conversation in Australian conservative academia…

    It makes one weep.

  14. Bernard J. says:

    I’m curious – if Abbott is determined to ignore the advice of the best economists and the best scientists on the matter of climate change, and it materialises in a decade or two that his policies are responsible for discernible delay and consequent damage to Australian and other national economies and to global ecosystems, is he not liable under law for not exercising due diligence and duty of care in his capacity as the leader of the Liberal Party and likely of the country?

    In other words, if Abbott’s decision to ignore science leads to exacerbated damage to my childrens’ and grandchildrens’ world, can they seek redress from him or from his estate and/or the Liberal Party?

    After all, he can’t say that he wasn’t told, especially with the contents of AR5 already known. If he willfully ignores the best professional advice, he and the Coalition are surely culpable under law for the consequences of their actions.

    • john byatt says:

      Abbott even intends to shut down the messenger


      Analysis of future emissions trajectories indicates that, left unchecked, human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) will increase several fold during the 21st century. Consequently, Australia’s annual average temperatures are projected to increase 0.4–2.0°C above 1990 levels by the year 2030, and 1–6°C by 2070. Average precipitation in southwest and southeast Australia is projected to decline during this time period, while regions such as the northwest may experience increases in rainfall. Meanwhile, Australia’s coastlines will experience erosion and inundation from an estimated 8–88 cm increase in global sea level. Such changes in climate will have diverse implications for Australia’s environment, economy, and public health.[2]
      A 2007 technical report on climate change in Australia jointly published by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Bureau of Meteorology provides climate change projections accounting for a number of variables, including temperature, rainfall, and others. The report provides assessment of observed Australian climate changes and causes, and projections for 2030 and 2070, under a range of emissions scenarios.[3]
      The Government of Australia acknowledges the impacts of changing climatic conditions, and its Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has established the Australian Climate Change Science Program (ACCSP), which aims to understand the causes, nature, timing, and consequences of climate change so as to inform the Australian response. The ACCSP will dedicate $14.4 million per year towards climate change research and has already made substantial progress with a recent publication, Australian Climate Change Research: Perspectives on Successes, Challenges, and Future Directions.

  15. john byatt says:

    Xenophon senate preferences bite him on the bum

    Nick Xenophon ‏@Nick_Xenophon 1h
    Any Coalition funding cuts on the River Murray that could affect SA are not on. I will oppose.

  16. Bill Jamison says:

    Man you guys must be several depressed after those election results! Say goodbye to the carbon tax.

    • uknowispeaksense says:

      Actually Bill, Tony Abbott has already flagged that he will be removing the carbon tax “within 3 years”. He knows the Murdoch Press has done a job on the Australian people and he knows that charade won’t last. He knows he will be blocked in the senate and he knows a double dissolution election will see him thrown out.

      While I am disappointed that the majority of Australians failed this IQ test, I’m actually also quietly pleased that Abbott has won. He is inept, sociopathic, pathologically dishonest and while the Australian public have decided to flirt with him this time, they won’t tolerate his disasterous policies for long and come next election, will kick his party to the kerb with so much venom, it will take years for them to recover. You see, you probably don’t get to see all the news on what his policies actually entail so your ignorance prevents you from making truly informed comments about it, so allow me to educate you.

      What the Murdoch press and MSM have managed to conceal from the voting public are policies that hurt the poor and feed the rich. Policies like…

      Paid Parental Leave. This policy allows women on massively high incomes to receive up to $75000 for 6 months of leave plus superannuation. It is to be paid for by placing a levy of 1.5% onto the company taxrate of the largest companies in Australia. Sounds like a winner yes? Taxing the rich and all that? What most people don’t know,but they will, is that self funded retirees and those saving to retire will be the ones who pay. This happens because dividends paid by these companies are usually fully franked and the rate paid as franking credits to superannuation accounts is worked out on the tax rate. Currently 30%. These franking credits will be reduced to 28.5% effectively taxing the elderly. These same people, who mostly voted for the conservatives, when it finally sinks in, will realise that they are not receiving the income they were confident of getting and instead, it is paying millionaires to have babies.

      Tax Breaks for mining magnates. Will it generate business and employment? Will Gina Rinehart, with an extra 50 million dollars use that money to employ extra people to do work that her current workforce is already doing? It might, but it is unlikely. Law of diminishing returns and all that. Meanwhile, scrapping the welfare top up that the mining tax pays for won’t be appreciated by those jobseekers who are struggling to make ends meet.

      Tax free threshold. Dropping the tax free threshold from $18000 to $6000 will hurt not just low income earners but also middle income earners who with mortgages to pay are already struggling.

      Scrapping renewable energy incentives, including halving the solar rebate. I have spoken to a number of people with investments in start up renewable energy companies who are pretty pissed at the idea that the companies they have invested in are not going to receive funding THAT WAS ALREADY PROMISED to allow them to connect to the grid or undertake important research etc.

      Child care. This one slipped through because it was announced so late and buried by the media. All those mums out there putting their precious kids in child care expect a certain level of service from their childcare providers, especially when the cost of childcare in this country is so high. Finding out that the number of children to carer quota has been increased and the standard of qualification of those carers decreased will not sit well with anyone.

      NBN. When people on middle incomes and lower get a taste of high speed broadband and want it, but are told that they can only have it if they pay ~$2500 to have it connected are going to wish they had been told in clear terms exactly what “fibre to the node” means.

      Industrial relations. We had a very distasteful IR reform here brought in by the last conservative government called “workchoices” This reform put all the power of wages, terms and conditions in the power of employers and gave them unprecedented powers to fire employees if they refused to accept contracts put in front of them. Tony Abbott has stated that IR reform is back on the table and that penalty rates will be the first things to go. He wants to take Gina Rinehart’s line and allow cheap labour to come from overseas to work for below minimum wages in jobs that “can’t be filled by Australians”. Slippery slippery slope and again, buried by the media.

      Finally and by no means the last of his ridiculous policies, direct action. Numerous independent reports have assessed the economics and scientific credibility of direct action and have found that in its current form, will result in an increase in emissions of up to 16% by 2020. Abbott knows this and has already said that the 5% reduction target will go. He is still going to proceed though and pay polluters “not to pollute” until the money runs out. Over the course of the forward estimates, multi billionaire mining magnates are going to be given hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and actually pollute more.

      In Abbottville, maths and physics work differently to the rest of the world and he is somehow going to pay for $70 billion extra in his budget without making any cuts…like magic. The truth is, public services will have to be slashed to pay for it all. When people find education standards falling, roads deteriorating, health services lagging and Gina Rinehart getting handouts, the Australian people will be pissed and no amount of spin from Murdoch and his mates will beable to hide it. Abbott will be a disaster and he will be severely punished for it.

      Oh and I almost forgot, it won’t sit well with most Australians, even the hard core rednecks, when they realise that cutting $4.5 billion out of the next of years in foreign aid will result in the unnecessary deaths of more than 400000 people. Nobody wants that on their conscience.

      • Bill Jamison says:

        It only costs $10/yr to keep a person alive? How is that possible???

        I don’t know anything about him and don’t really care. I do have to laugh that it’s all because of Murdoch though. Sounds like another conspiracy theory. I didn’t realize that the majority of Australians were so uneducated and uninformed that they could be so easily duped by the media.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Sorry bad math…that’s $11,250 per person annually.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          “It only costs $10/yr to keep a person alive? How is that possible???”

          Try again.

          “Sounds like another conspiracy theory.”

          Nice try.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Did you really not see my correction???

        • Gregory T says:

          Here you go Bill, perhaps this is a little closer to home and it’s your messiahs network of choice.

        • john byatt says:

          “It only costs $10/yr to keep a person alive? How is that possible???

          must think that it is all spent of rice or something.

          just a few dollars provides lifetime immunization, that saves lives

          you can provide sanitation etc for whole communities that saves lives

        • J Giddeon says:

          to uknowispeaksense and Mr Byatt,

          The $4.5 billion ‘cut’ to the foreign aid budget isn’t exactly a cut but a decision to reverse an announced but unfunded increase to the budget by the previous government. So no one currently relying on Australian aid will be disadvantaged.

          But let’s assume for the moment that you are right that cuts to the overseas aid budget result in deaths. Earlier this year the Gillard government cut overseas aid by $375 mill and redirected it to the costs of imprisoning asylum seekers. According to the ratios used by uknowispeaksense that meant the deaths of 25-30000 people.

          Try as I might I can’t find anywhere in uknowispeaksense’s blog where he complained of that cut and the consequent deaths. And I can’t find anywhere here where Mr Byatt raised his concerns.

          Any guesses as to why? Surely they aren’t as shallow as to only reach a moral outrage when the cuts are made by people they don’t like.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Don’t ever assume buddy. You make an ass out of u and….not me. I vote Green for a start. From my blog…

          “This is my first attempt at a blog. While my initial intention was to provide my insight into interesting science papers I have read, mostly concerned with human induced climate change and global warming, I have gravitated towards highlighting and criticising the lies, distortions, scientific illiteracy and misrepresentations of AGW deniers and their ilk.”

          It should come as no surprise to anyone that you wouldn’t find any comment on labor party foreign aid policy there. However, if I was prepared to give you access to my circle of friends and family they could confirm that I am highly critical of many aspects of many policies of many political parties. My decision to focus on that aspect of LNP policy as part of a long and broad ranging response to another commentator here should not be taken as a base to infer anything about my thoughts on any other political parties. Rather than making silly assertions with very little information, why not do the polite thing and just ask me? Afraid you may not get the answer you want no doubt? Well here you go..just for you… What do I think of the Labor government’s decision to scrap $375M from foreign aid to pay for jailing asylum seekers? If that is factual, i am appalled! I think that an increase in foreign aid spending targeted in the right areas would not only save lives but could also reduce the needs of people to seek asylum in this country.

          That said, my attacking the coalition on every possible point has more to do with the fact that their climate change policies have the potential to lead to far more pain and suffering in the long term by many more people around the world and should be stopped. I am hoping they decide to go to a DD at some point so they can be kicked to the curb where they belong and real change can occur. Highlighting poor policy decisions in all portfolios is designed to let people know how bad they are overall in preparation for when this happens.

          I saw many people tweeting last night that now Abbott is in, he will use decisions by the previous government as reasons to not implement a raft of his policies. Using the excuse that the money has yet to be spent so withdrawing it is ok is an extension of that mindset. Either way, the end result is the same. >400000 deaths that could be avoided.

          Now you know my position, I would love to hear your response to each and every other point I have made. Perhaps you would like to incorrectly assign some more motivations to me as well?

        • john byatt says:

          I not only voted green I also handed out the How to vote cards for them

          the Labor move was bad but apparently legit under UN rules, and I did email my disgust to Bob Carr,

          this is not redirection of funds for asylum seekers this is funds redirected to the mining and fossil fuel polluters $4.5 billion

          how is this for hypocrisy?

          Acting Opposition Leader Julie Bishop said that the aid cut sent a very bad message at the start of Australia’s two year stint on the UN Security Council. Ms Bishop said it was key plank of Australia’s pitch that it would increase aid spending to 0.5 per cent of gross national income.
          “They have mislead countries into voting for them,” Ms Bishop told reporters in Melbourne on Tuesday.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Gee, you voted Green! Then you must really be down in the dumps. At least the ALP did better than they feared. But the Greens did much worse. 25% of those who voted for them last time have seen the light. They must be terrified of a double dissolution where they could be wiped out. I suspect Abbott is secretly hoping that the ALP don’t cave over the carbon tax so that he can get his DD and do a job on the Greens. But as it stands it looks like he’ll get a compliant senate after 1/7/14 and he can afford to wait until then to get rid of that piece of ALP lunacy.

          Actually in many ways it’ll suit him to wait. He can blame the ALP/Green alliance for not doing what the public wants, continue to collect the funds to help offset the disastrous budget position and then get rid of the tax once the new senate takes over. Then, come the next election, run a scare campaign on the basis that the ALP/Greens still want the tax and will reintroduce it if they happened to win. It can hardly be a better set up for the Libs.

        • john byatt says:

          actually quite happy with the outcome as the greens will increase senate representation to 10 from july 2014.

          If labor hold the line which they seem to be, saying

          Wong ” climate change has not gone away because abbot was elected’

          then abbott will have to wait til july 2014,
          nine months a lot of things can happen

        • john byatt says:

          J Giddeon says:
          September 9, 2013 at 3:14 am
          Gee, you voted Green!

          gee after whining about no one condemning rudd for foreign aid cuts you are speechless about the hypocrisy of Bishop

          I never really have needed to bother which side of politics served which term, until the coalition reneged on action against climate change i was apolitical ,

        • J Giddeon says:

          “actually quite happy with the outcome as the greens will increase senate representation to 10 from july 2014.”

          Green vote went from 12% to 8+%. Another “happy..outcome” like that and they’ll go the way of the Aust Democrats. Here’s hoping!

          “gee after whining about no one condemning rudd for foreign aid cuts you are speechless about the hypocrisy of Bishop”
          It wasn’t Rudd, it was that nice Ms Gillard. I wasn’t whining about the cuts (I’m in favour of both the Lab and Lib cuts to foreign aid), just wondering why one was bad and the other not worth mentioning.

          “this is not redirection of funds for asylum seekers this is funds redirected to the mining and fossil fuel polluters $4.5 billion”

          In reality, its funds that would have been borrowed from china and given out, So not redirected to anyone, just not borrowed. It would be more efficient if we just told Indonesia and all the other OzAid recipients to just go and get a loan from China and send us the bill.

        • john byatt says:

          god have read all that crap all over the internet, think for yourself for once

          Bill Bailey did

          Bill Bailey ✔ @BillBailey

          Oz, have you elected a climate-change denying halfwit, cos I said you can’t have a world leader called Kevin? I am truly sorry.
          9:23 AM – 8 Sep 2013

        • J Giddeon says:

          “god have read all that crap all over the internet”

          So lots of people agree with me then. Pleased to hear it. That’s how democracy works although we all know that greens have a love-hate relationship with that concept.

          “Bill Bailey did”

          Did he write it in his little black book?

      • Bernard J. says:


        In a perverse way I too am pleased that Abbott is in, for the same reason you put forward, although I suspect that it might take the dense mediocrity of the Australian voting public more than one term to figure it out – unless there is a spectacular shift in the political landscape over the next few years.

        On the local ABC radio station this morning Dr Tony McCall was opining that the Abbott government will try to remain uncontroversial after the first few months in order to “put the Australian voting public to sleep”. I guess that this would be a way of avoiding the dangers of a DD election, and if it was a successful strategy up to the point of the Senate change-over they might actually continue with not rocking the boat if they think that they can get away with breaking their major promises like repealing the carbon price. Personally I think that McCall is a bit optimistic – Abbott hates the science of climate change… although he is a cunning politician who is welded to power, and he might try anything to hold onto the Lodge. Time will tell.

        As to the “Green Army”, if it actually eventuates it will be one of the biggest white elephants in political history. As you and others have noted much money will be funneled up the food-chain to fill the pockets of rich companies, and the “army” itself will likely be largely composed of long-term and youth unemployed on work-for-the-dole type schemes, with very little assurance of ongoing success. All that will result from such an enterprise will be an Australian landscape littered with millions of plastic plant guards nurturing the desiccated stems of dead seedlings that inevitably arise whenever a tree is not watered on every dry day for the first year or two of their post-planted lives.

        So not only will such an exercise in futility result in a net profit to the private sector at a high cost to the taxpayer, it will result in a net increase in carbon emissions.

        On the matter of the tax-free threshold, I thought that the Coalition had promised to retain it:

        Do you have a more recent reference that supersedes this?

        • john byatt says:

          I would wait for the white paper rather than abbott’s budget reply

          the DD is unlikely

        • J Giddeon says:

          I agree, no DD until late 2014 if indeed its needed. This is all in Abbott’s favour. He can keep the tax and use the revenue to help fix Swan’s budget mess while being able to blame the ALP/Green axis of evil for ignoring the expressed will of the people. Then, if the new senate still refuses to do the right thing, he can go late next year.
          In the meantime, he’ll get the Royal Commission in union corruption up and running and the public will find out how Shorten/Howes/Ludwig protected Gillard and her then boyfriend after union funds were stolen, along with new revelations about the HSU in NSW and the building union in Qld. If its all timed properly, he could go to a DD around this time next year by which point the ALP will be thinking of 2013 as a highpoint in their popularity.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

    • K largo says:

      Bill says “say goodbye to the Carbon Tax”. But according to Labor it’s already gone!

      I received a pamphlet in the letterbox during the campaign from the ALP.
      It said in big letters :
      “Kevin Rudd and Labor removed the carbon tax”

      On the reverse side it says:
      “Kevin Rudd and Labor have removed the carbon tax – saving the average family $380.”

      Note “have removed” not “will remove”

      If that is so why does Abbott say it is his first priority to remove it if Rudd and Labor have already removed it? Why are there noises from Labor saying they will resist removal of the tax despite the massive mandate for Abbott to do so and despite their claim to have already removed it?

      • john byatt says:

        look up duty of care.
        senators have a duty to inform themselves and act in the best interest of all australians, even palmer’s senator elect in tasmania stated that she will not vote for ETS removal.

        i still do not trust labor to stick to their guns but if they have the guts, good on them

        No DD before new senators take up their seats next july

        get used to it

      • K largo says:

        But John, I have here in black and white, authorised by Senator Louise Pratt that “Kevin Rudd and Labor removed the carbon tax”. You mean to say Labor’s claim was not true?

        • J Giddeon says:

          yeah, a majority wanted to keep the tax. That’s why both major parties went to the election promising to get rid of it. Right? Logic failure somewhere there.

          The daft notion of a so-called price on carbon was so bad that it destroyed three prime ministerships

        • john byatt says:

          Yes a majority do want to keep the tax a majority also wanted rid of gillard rudd

          the swing to coalition was about 1.7%
          so rusted on coalition supporters stayed,abbotts scrap the tax got an extra 1.7%

          the big shift was away from the major parties towards the small parties, exactly what abbot asked everyone not to do.

          it is all moot, either labor will accept abbotts legislation or they will not
          your whining will not change that outcome

        • Bill Jamison says:

          Interesting…only 24% wanted to keep it at the current price instead of allowing it to be market driven. So a large majority wants it changed from the current implementation.

        • john byatt says:

          here is a wrap of abbotts direct action non plan

          As a competitive grant program direct action will likely suffer from two main problems. The first is it will be unable to produce the level of reduction that is required to reach the target. The Coalition would need to fund projects that will reduce emissions by 713 million tonnes by 2020. The Grattan Institute found that previous grants programs, many of which were run under the Howard Government, were only able to spend about 18 per cent of allocated funds after 10 years because they couldn’t find enough projects. Given this, the Direct Action Plan is unlikely to achieve more than 18 per cent of its planned reduction.

          Even if the Coalition were to somehow overcome the problem of finding enough emissions reduction projects and getting them to deliver on time it has a second, even larger problem: the cost. The amount of money set aside for the Emissions Reduction Fund is highly unlikely to be sufficient to buy the quantity of reductions that would be required to meet the five per cent target. If we use the average cost of abatement for competitive grant schemes that have been previously conducted in Australia then by 2020 the Fund would have to allocate around $100 billion. That is, on average, $11.1 billion every year to 2020, or put another way, $1,300 per household per year. This is far in excess of what the Coalition has budgeted for.

          As part of its Direct Action Plan the Coalition proposes to offset 15 million tonnes of emissions from planting trees. To achieve this would require an area of 25,000 square kilometres and about 9,100 gigalitres of water, two and a half times the amount of water proposed to be bought back by the draft Murray Darling Basin Plan.

          The Coalition plans to achieve 60 per cent of their emissions reduction from soil carbon. Soil carbon is currently a largely untested source of reduction. There are further issues to resolve around soil variability and the maintenance of the sequestered carbon over time. Due to uncertainties large scale use of soil carbon sequestration is a risky exercise. It requires further investigation and until the measurement methodology is resolved it seems unwise to rely on it as heavily as the Coalition does in its Direct Action Plan.

          The Coalition’s Emissions Reduction Fund would also require a large number of public servants to administer the tendering process. If we make the generous assumption that the average reduction in emissions per project is 25,000 tonnes then there would need to be about 28,500 successful projects to meet the target. If we assume four unsuccessful projects for every successful one then the number of projects assessed would be close to 150,000.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Mr Byatt,
          That’s a direct copy from an article in OLO. Ever heard of quotation marks? I think it might be illegal to lift so much of the article without attribution. the WtD blog owner ought to be a little wary of that. Just a heads up.

        • Bill Jamison says:

          john isn’t much for attribution or cites

        • john byatt says:

          I am sure that they would appreciate getting this to moron deniers on the internet

          uly 12, 2011 Dr Richard Denniss and Matt Grudnoff
          The Coalition has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It proposes to achieve this target with a “Direct Action Plan”: a competitive grant scheme that would buy greenhouse gas reductions from businesses and farmers. Over the past decade various Australian governments have announced more than seven billion dollars of competitive grant schemes. The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Grattan Institute have reviewed competitive grant schemes in Australia and found that they:
          • Take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned
          • Achieve much less than expected
          • Cost far more than was budgeted.

          This analysis finds that the Coalition’s Direct Action Plan will cost far more than is budgeted for and is unlikely to find sufficient greenhouse gas reduction projects in order to reach the Coalition’s emissions reduction target.

        • J Giddeon says:

          I’m just suggesting that Mike might like to check it out. My understanding is that what My B is doing is a breach of copyright and could have ramifications for the blog owner.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          garbage – deflection

        • john byatt says:

          it is now attributed with a plug for the author as well, your concern is noted

        • J Giddeon says:

          It hardly gets better than this….

          It now seems that the post 7/14 Senate will easily have the numbers to repeal the carbon tax and the MRRT but won’t have the numbers to get the Direct Action plan up (unless the ALP/Greens decide to support it).

          So we could end up with absolutely no governmental funded plan to reduce CO2e emissions. I wonder if the planet will notice?

        • john byatt says:

          If Xenophon gets two senate seats, he will not support scrap the tax unless abbott introduces a better scheme than DAP at the same time.
          also some of the micro parties may wish for things that abbott could not deliver in return for their support.

          what will happen will happen. a fierce heatwave summer would put paid to Abbott’s plans,

          early days

        • john byatt says:

          Palmer will support scrap the tax if all monies collected so far are refunded

          Abbott could not even negotiate to sell his arse last election, not sure he will do any better this time

        • john byatt says:

          clive palmer whining

          “Politics is a ruthless game and this is what happens. That the counting is so long and so drawn out is a sign of a changing result and the complexity of the system.”

          Mr Palmer earlier today told AAP his Liberal National Party rival Ted O’Brien is likely to get over the line by a few hundred votes.

          “I’d be highly surprised if I won,” he told AAP today.

          “But there’s absolutely no way I will win based (on) voting irregularities and the security of the ballots.”

          He said if he fails to win Fairfax, two PUP candidates expected to be elected to the Senate will block Tony Abbott’s policies unless electoral reform is promised.

          “We think it’s a corrupt system. Until that’s sorted out Abbott won’t be getting any legislation through the Senate with our support,” Mr Palmer said.

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          I think prepolling is wrong except in circumstances where a voter is likely to be out of the country or in hospital or some other extraordinary circumstance. If Cathy McGowan falls short on prepoll results in Indi it will be because as an independent she had to build momentum. If people have voted before they’ve had a chance to hear about her it is a disadvantage. It certainly seems that this is the case in Indi. I followed the campaigns closely for that seat as I lived there and was keen to see Mirabella gone and most of Cathy’s support took off in the final 2 weeks.

  17. john byatt says:

    Abbott and class warfare,

    What is surprising is the extent to which Coalition policies will result in a significant redistribution of wealth upwards rather than downwards. Consider the following Coalition policies:
    ■ Lower the tax-free threshold from $18,200 to $6000. This will drag more than one million low-income earners back into the tax system. It will also increase the taxes for 6 million Australians earning less than $80,000.
    ■ Abolish the low-income superannuation contribution. This will reimpose a 15 per cent tax on superannuation contributions for people earning less than $37,000.
    ■ Abolish the proposed 15 per cent tax on income from superannuation above $100,000 a year. The combined effect of these two superannuation changes is that 16,000 high-income earners with superannuation savings in excess of $2 million will get a tax cut while 3.6 million workers earning less than $37,000 will pay more than $4 billion extra in tax on their super over the next four years.
    ■ Abolish the means test on the private health insurance rebate. This will deliver a $2.4 billion tax cut over three years for individuals earning more than $84,001 a year, or couples earning more than $168,001. People on lower incomes will receive no benefit.
    ■ Introduce a paid parental leave scheme that replaces a mother’s salary up to $150,000. To put it crudely, this means a low-income mum gets about $600 per week while a high-income mum gets close to $3000.
    ■ Abolish the means-tested Schoolkids Bonus that benefits 1.3 million families by providing up to $410 for each primary school child and up to $820 for each high school child.
    These policies will result in low- and middle-income earners paying billions of dollars more in tax while those on higher incomes receive billions in tax cuts and new benefits. Rather than take from the rich and give to the poor, the Coalition policies are a case of take from the poor and give to the rich.

    Read more:

    • K largo says:

      John B can you point to me anywhere except in Labor propaganda where it says the Coalition will cut the tax-free threshold from $18000 to $6000?

      In any case, according to ATO figures, the effective tax-free threshold with the LITO was already $16000 when Labor made changes to increase it to an effective $20,542. The mantra of tripling the tax-free threshold was another of Labor’s and Swan’s misleading claims.

      They paid for it by increasing marginal tax rates for those earning under $80,000 from 30c to 32.5c in the dollar. So IF it is wound back, which it won’t be, tax rates for the majority of your 6 million Australians earning under $80,000 will DECREASE back to where they were.

      • john byatt says:

        so why it was not mentioned ?

        That concludes our tour of the Coalition’s costings document. The actual impacts on households of many of these changes will not be keenly felt. The real effects will come in with a continued two-speed economy and stagnation of anything that isn’t mining, an unchecked increase in carbon emissions (but it’s probably too little, too late on that front in any case), hits to manufacturing (particularly automotive) and decreased support for parents of school-aged children.

        We ought to be more concerned about the Coalition’s other intentions. Not mentioned are such other issues as the reduction of the tax free threshold from $18,000 to $6,000, the cancellation of Medicare Locals so the health system can go back to its smooth-as-butter conditions, the nobbling of the NBN or the sudden availability of cheap second-hand fishing boats to our local industry, as none of these count as savings measures. The increase in the tax free threshold was offset with increases in marginal rates for higher income earners, so it was revenue neutral, placing a slightly higher tax load on the wealthy. Obviously this goes counter to the Coalition’s ethos and will be reversed. Labor’s attack strategy on the Coalition’s supposed budget black holes and threatened Cuts to Everything (TM) is flawed because it is so easily countered, and it ignores so many much more real implications of a Coalition victory.

    • K largo says:

      I take that as a no.
      They haven’t mentioned it because it is not their policy.

      • john byatt says:

        no, because it is cost neutral, it is not a saving

        • K largo says:

          You are grasping at straws John. Give me some proof it is Coalition policy and not Labor scaremongering.

        • john byatt says:

          here can you grasp this

          Mr Hockey said the Coalition remained committed to dumping both the carbon tax and any sweeteners connected to it because consumers would benefit from the reduced household energy prices that would follow. These sweeteners include a tripling of the tax-free threshold from $6000 to $18,200, rising to $19,400 in 2014-15, and increases to a slew of household payments.
          ”Let me be very clear, if there is no carbon tax, there is no need for compensation because if you don’t have a carbon tax, you don’t have injury. And by its very design, the carbon tax is meant to cause injury, it’s meant to change behaviour, and that’s why the government compensates,” Mr Hockey said.

          Read more:

          and you only have a half hearted budget reply from abbott as evidence

          did you get it from him in writing?

          was he committed like Hockey ?

        • K largo says:

          From the article:
          “They also appear to contradict statements by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, who has hinted that tax arrangements similar to Labor’s compensation package might continue”.

          Since March it has become obvious there is no Coalition policy to reduce the Tax-free threshold. In fact there is evidence that compensation will continue.

          Still waiting for proof, John.

  18. john byatt says:

    Giddeon and largo can retweet this

    uknowispeaksense says:
    September 5, 2013 at 6:12 pm
    I tweeted at Hockey last night asking if he had an answer for this kid.

  19. Bill Jamison says:

    I had no idea that Abbott would make so many drastic changes so quickly! Wow.

    Australia’s landslide election result seems to be bad news for the climate. Following the election of a new government, Australia is to abolish its emissions trading scheme, disband a climate advisory body and institute a carbon reduction policy that experts say will fail to meet its meagre target.

    Abbott’s coalition also signalled that it would disband Australia’s Climate Commission – an independent scientific body that provides reliable information on climate change to the public. In response to a report the commission released, warning that extreme weather was made more likely by climate change, Abbott said: “When the carbon tax goes, all of those bureaucracies will go and I suspect we might find that the particular position you refer to goes with them.”

    • john byatt says:

      fairly old news in OZ, he still needs to get most of that through a hostile senate or wait until july 2014 when a mix of micro parties will hold the balance in the senate

      Abbott has been upfront with what he will do though.

      Basically australia wants to share the common environment without any responsibility to take part in any emissions reduction,

      Abbott is going to close down the climate commission (messenger) and leave it up to Murdoch to inform the public,

      • Bernard J. says:

        Basically australia wants to share the common environment without any responsibility to take part in any emissions reduction

        Frankly, the rest of the world should impose sanctions on Australia, where appropriate, for working away from emissions reduction where other countries are trying to work toward them.

        What is really astonishing is that the Coalition is telling the Labor Party to relinquish the price on carbon because the conservatives “have a mandate”. Well, they don’t have a mandate from those who didn’t vote for them, so the Labor party should stick to its guns. Further, never in democratic history has the results of an election been taken to mean that only the winning party has the correct policies – if this was the case, the only policies that would ever exist in government are those that were developed since the last change in governing parties. This is clearly a logical brain-fart.

        And like it or not there will be a price on carbon in the long-term. The laws of physics don’t give a shit about the Coalition’s election victory, and when the time comes that the truth can’t be ignored even by the ignorant ideologues, the later it took to price carbon the more the economies of Australia and the rest of the world will be screwed. If Tony Abbott wants to be the person who more than anyone in Australia represents the stupidity that permanently ruins the country’s economy and the biosphere, I’m happy for him to be recognised as such – I just hope that he and his allies pay the full price that will fall due as a consequence of their actions.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Spot on. The Libs can’t claim a mandate even though the majority of people voted for their policies Everyone well knows that only Labor victories provide mandates.

          /sarc off

        • john byatt says:

          which is funny because a young liberal has started a petition (95,000 signatures so far) to dump their NBN scheme and maintain the labor NBN,

          in a democracy the law can only be changed in the house,

          if you cannot get the numbers then it is no use crying about it

        • Bernard J. says:

          J Giddeon.

          By your very own argument Tony Abbott should have accepted the 2007 “mandate” of the Australians who overwhelmingly elected Kevin Rudd on the platform of introducing an emissions trading scheme.

          Instead Abbott knifed Turnbull in the back in 2010, although he only wrestled the Liberal leadership by a single vote. Nevertheless the 2007 election delivered a clear desire for a carbon price, and prior to the Liberal Party spill there was bipartisan support for the same. It was only when Abbott dived in with appeals to the lizard brains of intellectually mediocre Australians that the carbon price mandate evaporated. Why did he not instead respect the “mandate”?

          Sorry buster, but your argument doesn’t wash.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Bernard J.

          1 Labor didn’t have a mandate for an ETS in 2007 since they didn’t take a specific policy to the electorate. Additionally they promised not to introduce an ETS before 2010. After the election they had a series of commissions to decide on the final make-up of the ETS.
          2. The ETS was scuttled first by the Greens and then by Gillard/Swan. Abbott didn’t have the numbers to defeat it. Gillard/Swan opposed the ETS because they knew it was unpopular ie even if there was a mandate in 2007 it was gone by 2009.

        • Bernard J. says:

          J. Giddeon.

          1) Wrong.

          In 2007 Rudd got in partly on Workchoices and partly on “the greatest moral challenge of our time”. He worked on ETS and had Turnbull’s support for a version before Abbott knifed Turnbull in 2009. Rudd’s ousting before the end of his first term in 2010 was in large part a consequence of his wavering on promised emissions reduction action brought about by the Coalition’s reframing of the debate after Abbott tookover the leadership. Gillard’s infamous promise not to introduce a “carbon tax” was a further reaction to Abbott’s manipulation of the issue, but Labor very definitely took a price on carbon to the electorate for the 2007 election.

          2) Complete misrepresentation of the facts.

          Abbott didn’t have the numbers to defeat it.

          Abbott’s Coalition didn’t have the numbers themselves to defeat the ETS, but he was rabidly determined to do so. He reversed the Coalition’s previous agreement on an ETS once he took over from Turnbull, and the Greens backed him on blocking the ETS but for diametrically-opposite reasons to Abbott: Abbott didn’t believe in climate change (it was “absolute crap” in his own words) whilst the Greens felt that the ETS as framed was inadequate to achieve the necessary reduction in emissions and wanted it to be beefed up.

          As to the mandate being “gone” by 2009 that disappearance was based on Abbott’s character assasination of Gillard, and on an anti-scientific/anti-economic misrepresentation of carbon pricing. He appealed to the base instincts of the uneducated herd and succeeded, but if he had practiced then what he preaches now he would not have done that, as prior to Abbott’s whipping-up of the collective lizard brain the public was all for reducing emissions.

          You claim that John and I are misrepresenting the history of the carbon price, but any 5 minute search will show that it was an issue back in 2007. Therefore my original point stands – Abbott ignored the 2007 “mandate” by the electorate, knifed Turnbull in the back in 2009, and started his personal, ideological crusade to avoid pricing carbon – ironically after claiming that a carbon tax was better than an ETS to reduce emissions…

        • uknowispeaksense says:

          Excellent and accurate summation Bernard. Deniers will of course try to rewrite history. I would like to add that the “carbon tax” statement by Gillard is always quote-mined by the wilfully ignorant but she did in fact take into the 2010 election a promise to implement a price on carbon. Her full statement from the television interview was….

          “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but lets be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon.”

          It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

          What I find amazing now is the carry-on from the coalition and their supporters about a supposed mandate, expecting Labor and the Greens to simply roll over and pass all their legislation, when Abbott was the most obstructionist opposition in recent history with a record for the most timewasting in parliamentary history, yet despite that the Gillard/Rudd government passed a record number of bills through superior negotiation skills. Will Abbott be as successful? I understand his negotiation skills basically come down to punching walls and threatening people.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Bernard J.,

          We could argue this back and forth but not agree because I don’t accept your assertions on Rudd having a mandate for an ETS in 2007. In my view you have to put specific proposals at an election to get a mandate for your policy. Rudd didn’t do that. He merely promised to do something about CC and price carbon by 2010. Why 2010? Because Howard had promised 2011.

          But by 2009 the hysteria of 2007 over CC was waning and an inflationary price on carbon was no longer popular.

          So unpopular in fact that there was a grassroots campaign against Turnbull by Lib members and supporters to try to get him to reverse his support for the ETS. It was this campaign that delivered the leadership to Abbott. He hadn’t caused the unpopularity but reflected it, and represented it. You might not like to be reminded that the Greens defeated the ETS but it is still true.

          At this time gillard and Swan also came to see the ETS as unpopular and advised Rudd to drop it. Being a man of zero convictions he did whatever was popular and the tax died. Then of course, his own popularity dropped as people came to see he had no principles. Ironically it was this drop in the polls caused by following Gillard’s advice that was then used by Gillard to knife him.

        • J Giddeon says:

          “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but lets be absolutely clear. I am determined to price carbon.”

          It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

          Well Mr uknowispeaksense, at least you used quotation marks which puts you way ahead of Mr B. However if you quote someone its probably a good idea to make sure they said what you’re quoting. Unfortunately Gillard never said this. Its a made up quote to try to show that she didn’t lie to the electorate. I know its repeated a lot and you’ll find it all over the web, but it isn’t true. As best as I can work out it was first claimed by her biographer that she’d said it. But you won’t find any footage of her using those words. Check it out. Swan also made unequivocal promises not to introduce a tax eg

          She did say however that she still thought some sort of pricing on carbon was a good idea. But again her idea here was to put together a citizens assembly to consider the issue and only once it had reached agreement AND had had extensive nation debate to gather a national consensus, would she move on a tax. None of that happened in her haste to do Bob Brown’s will.

        • john byatt says:


          JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

          It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.

          In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.

          “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”

        • Bernard J. says:

          I don’t accept your assertions on Rudd having a mandate for an ETS in 2007. In my view you have to put specific proposals at an election to get a mandate for your policy. Rudd didn’t do that. He merely promised to do something about CC and price carbon by 2010.

          Rudd’s specific proposals included a price on carbon – within the first term of a Labor government, as you yourself point out. This was why the election was widely touted as the “first climate change election”:

          Click to access APSA2010_0161.pdf

          And remember the Garnaut Climate Change Review? It was commissioned almost 8 months before the 2007 election and although the interim report didn’t come out until early 2008 there was much discussion in the media (at least, there was on the ABC) of the relative merits of a trading scheme versus a carbon tax for attaining the “20% by 2020, 60% by 2060” reductions in emissions* that Rudd spoke of in the run-up to the election

          I knew what I was voting for, and most of Australia knew too – a reduction in emissions brought about by a market pricing mechanism, and by the development of the renewable energy industries.

          (*The final Garnaut recommendations were much more stringent and are completely unattainable now, which bodes very grimly indeed for Australia’s future imposed response when the situation becomes unavoidable, as it will…)

          But by 2009 the hysteria of 2007 over CC was waning and an inflationary price on carbon was no longer popular.

          So unpopular in fact that there was a grassroots campaign against Turnbull by Lib members and supporters to try to get him to reverse his support for the ETS. It was this campaign that delivered the leadership to Abbott.

          Yes, and this campaign was so ‘successful’ that Abbott won the leadership by a single vote. That’s hardly a resounding result. It’s worse than this though because Fran Bailey, a Turnbull supporter, was unable to attend the ballot and another Liberal member voted “no” which implies a dis-satisfaction with Abbott tipping Turnbull. If the Coalition members had been fully and properly canvassed Abbott would never have been the leader, and his ideologies would be nothing more than back-room nuttery.

          Further, the price on carbon was still popular in the electorate at this time and it was this popularity that was fomenting the antipathy to Rudd that Gillard’s camp used to justify their coup. As I said previously it was only after Abbott took over the leadership and commenced an anti-scientific, ideological campaign involving much ad hominem argument that the sheep in the electorate started moving away from the idea of managing climate change.

          So Abbott came in at a time where Rudd not only had an election mandate for pricing carbon, but was losing his popularity because of his response to the ideological backlash that was fermenting firstly in the Abbott/Minchin/Bernardi/Abbetz/Joyce/Mirabella/et al faction of the Liberal/National Coalition, with more than a little sympathy from Big Industry and the Murdoch press.

          Had Turnbull retained the leadership the ETS would have gone through and the Abbott duping of the electorate would have never happened. We’d have a much more robust renewable sector now, and we’d be much better prepared for future responses to global warming instead of setting ourselves up to go the other way, and essentially commit by the middle of the century the national and international economies (and societies in general) to generations of dysfunctionality.

          [As a PS, Sophie Mirabella has just implicitly conceded defeat by saying that Abbott should choose his ministry without her. Every cloud…]

        • john byatt says:

          Think that your elec price will drop with Abbott?

          It went up from 20C/kwh to over 24C/kwh in our area under QLD newman govt in one year

          Abbott claims that it will be reduced by 10%, without carbon price or we can expect it back to 21.6C/kwh

          why not just reduce your use by 10% or more

          remains to be seen

        • J Giddeon says:

          So she ruled out a carbon tax but ruled in a price mechanism “provided the community was ready for this step.”

          Strangely that’s what I thought I’d said. She was going to have a citizens assembly to try to generate that community agreement.

          But somehow being right makes me an “idiot”…well at least to some!

          BTW the blog rules include:

          “Treat all posters, commentators and readers with respect and refrain from personal insults and ad hominem attacks.

          Just for future reference, are the blog rules followed or are they just there for show?

        • john byatt says:

          the facts

          and climate change denier Abbott believes that removing the price will put Australia at the forefront ?

        • john byatt says:

          JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

          It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.

          In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.

          only an idiot would try to make out that her intentions were hidden from the voters

        • john byatt says:

          the only liars are the trolls who claimed that they voted for gillard believing that she would not introduce a carbon price


          so if you did not vote for gillard then stop whinging, get over it and get on with your life, you are becoming bitter and twisted

      • J Giddeon says:

        Mr Byatt,

        I’m not sure why you can’t understand this.

        “only an idiot would try to make out that her intentions were hidden from the voters”

        You seem to have a penchant for just making things up. Nowhere have I said she was hiding things. She was quite open about what she would do if elected. The problem was she did something quite different once elected.

        “the only liars are the trolls who claimed that they voted for gillard believing that she would not introduce a carbon price”

        Here’s the thing. During the 2010 election Abbott was saying the ALP would introduce a carbon tax. Obviously this was striking a nerve in the electorate since the ALP felt the need to deny it strongly and often. On that basis, clearly there were people who felt comfortable voting Labor knowing that there wouldn’t be a carbon tax and any other pricing system wouldn’t be done until there was broad community support following the citizens assembly and it wouldn’t be implemented until 2013.

        The problem was Gillard did the very thing she said she wouldn’t (carbon tax) and didn’t do the very thing she said she would (citizens assembly, wait for broad consensus and wait until 2013). She never recovered from breaking faith with the public.

        I’ve never said or believed she lied. I’m sure that, at the time she said it, she fully intended to not have a carbon tax and to only implement a pricing system after a long public debate. But, following the election, in the raw pursuit of power, she felt much more obligated to do the Greens bidding than fulfil her promises to the Australian public. I’m sure she felt that the public would forget her deceit by the time the next election came around, Abbott made sure that didn’t happen. You need to understand this to understand what happened last weekend.

        • john byatt says:

          lets put it this way

          in the 2010 election I voted for the greens to keep gillard to her promise to price carbon pollution.

          It was a great outcome for all those who accept the science.

          are you saying that you voted for her because she said she would not price carbon?

        • john byatt says:

          “You need to understand this to understand what happened last weekend.”

          Australian Labor Party 4,854,814 46.80 -3.40
          Liberal/National Coalition 5,519,790 53.20 +3.40

          this tells me that you do not have a clue about last weekend

          nearly five million Australians did not fall for abbotts crap,

        • J Giddeon says:

          I didn’t vote for either the ALP or Libs.
          Voted minor party (LibDems) and preferenced Libs based upon economic considerations.

          “It was a great outcome for all those who accept the science.”
          I accept the science but thought/think the carbon tax was a terrible idea.

          “are you saying that you voted for her ….”
          What I’m saying is that some section of the public were concerned about the possibility of a carbon tax and that Gillard sought to mollify them by promising to not introduce such a tax. She broke that promise and the rest is history.

        • john byatt says:

          then why no let them speak for themselves as less than 4 in a 100, even if we put everyone one of them down as changing their vote due to what gillard said.

          I see your guy got in on the donkey vote, ironic

        • john byatt says:

          “I voted Lib?democrats ”

          Those who use firearms for coercive purposes, whether actual or threatened, may have their right to own them restricted or removed.

          well that is a relief

        • john byatt says:

          The lib/dem do not even have a climate change policy

          just a bunch of gun loving mean selfish bastards reading some of their policies

          so you accept the science but vote for a party with no policy?

          go away troll

        • J Giddeon says:

          “The lib/dem do not even have a climate change policy”

          I see your research skills match your logic skills. Quite hilarious.

          Here is their policy. I’m sure you’ll be mightily impressed…

        • john byatt says:

          What, their energy policy with this statement?

          “That atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing but considers the consequences of this, whether it is due to human influence and if anything can or should be done about it, as too uncertain to warrant government action”

          and again you claim to accept the science but vote for a party without a climate change policy

          you were scammed

          antony green

          Stopping over-lapping party membership is also important. David Leyonhjelm, set to be elected as the Liberal Democrat Senator for NSW, is the registered office of both the Liberal Democrats and the Outdoor Recreation Party (Stop the Greens). Members of his party also seem to be closely associated with the Smokers Rights Party.

        • J Giddeon says:

          Here, I’ll spoon-feed you since it appears to be beyond your abilities:

          Global Warming

          Scientific evidence suggests that the Earth’s climate has changed throughout its existence, sometimes dramatically, and that changes in climate have impacted human civilisation. Much of human history has been subject to the effects of global warming or cooling – the origins of the Sumerian, Babylonian and perhaps also biblical stories of a great flood, for example, are probably due to a massive rise in sea levels following global warming 7,600 years ago.

          Global cooling from 1300 to 500 BC gave rise to the advance of glaciers, migration, invasion and famine. The Medieval Warm Period from 900 to 1300 AD led to the Vikings establishing colonies and trade routes.

          Whether human activity is causing climate change or not, the important issue is whether governments are capable of implementing policies that mitigate it without reducing the prosperity of future generations.

          Should the evidence become compelling that global warming is due to human activity, that such global warming is likely to have significantly negative consequences for human existence, and that changes in human activity could realistically reverse those consequences, the LDP would favour market-based options.

          1. We were talking about the 2010 election so your Antony Green quote is irrelevant. (if you can’t keep track of the conversation you really ought to drop out or at least cease being so strident in your ignorance) Besides which I didn’t vote for them in the Senate this time around.
          2. When I decide on my vote I look to a lot more than the party’s CC policy.
          3. when I vote for a party I don’t necessarily or usually agree with all their policies, just their general philosophy and attitude on the major issues at that time eg economy, boarders.

        • john byatt says:

          That is not a policy it is a statement of denial, and your last 2010 vote for the ldp would have been just as tainted, i will look it up for you

        • john byatt says:

          In the QLD senate election the LDP votes went to

          55,222 (2.25%) votes originally from Liberal Democrats (LDP) distributed to Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party (Keith DOUGLAS) via preference 28.

          the AFLP is another microparty with no climate change policy,

          it recognises threats to the GBR as cyclones, climate change and SLR but states no threats due to humans,

          which state?

        • J Giddeon says:

          “That is not a policy it is a statement of denial”

          Lack of self-awareness mixed with rank pig-headedness is normally a pathetic look.

          In your case its just funny.

          Anyone who has a policy that doesn’t meet your approval doesn’t have a policy? Guffaw!

          “In the QLD senate election ….”

          In 2010 I lived in NSW. Keep trying!

        • john byatt says:

          you voted for that as a climate change policy statement,

          their preferences seemed to come also from deniers such as these goons

          building australia party
          The CSIRO wastes precious research dollars, paid for by our Government, for controlling methane emissions from cows. Jennifer Marohasy an Environmental writer in “The Land” newspaper of the 19 July 2012, reported that this was a complete waste of funding, as termites emit more methane than all cows and camels in Australia put together.

          and you claim to accept the science?

          pull the other one

        • J Giddeon says:

          Now let’s see if I can get this clear in my mind:

          in 2010 I gave my first preference Senate vote to a party who were in turn preferenced by a party who thought it was a waste of money to research cow farts, and this, in your fevered mind, proves that I don’t accept the science on climate change.

          Sorry to tell you this china, but you’re bonkers.

        • john byatt says:

          I will spell it out, building australia and other micro parties preferenced LDP based in part on their climate change denial stance

          “Should the evidence become compelling that global warming is due to human activity”

          that is denial and you voted for it while claiming that you found the evidence compelling.

          you are either a concern troll or just plain idiotic

        • J Giddeon says:

          “building australia and other micro parties preferenced LDP based in part on their climate change denial stance”

          Any evidence for that or did the voices in your head inform you?I always vote below the line.

          what other parties did is by-the-by since I always vote below the line.

          “that is denial and you voted for it while claiming that you found the evidence compelling.”
          I didn’t vote for them because of their climate policy but because of their libertarian stance on other issues. I know you won’t understand that. But try.

          I’m not completely up to speed on all your silly childish little ad homs. What’s a concern troll?

          oh, and you’re still bonkers.

        • john byatt says:

          you try to claim they had a policy which they did not , pure denial
          but you did not consider that in any case,

          so you voted them because you want to carry a concealed weapon or just hate foreign aid ?

          must have been a good reason to accept the science of climate change but vote for a denialist political party with dodgy links to other micro parties.

          your vote your call but stop trying to justify that the party you voted for had a climate policy

        • J Giddeon says:

          “but stop trying to justify that the party you voted for had a climate policy”

          I showed you their policy. You might not like it but it is a policy. And despite your anxiety to label it denialist (is everything you don’t agree with denialist?) they aren’t denying that humans may have an effect on climate, just that there is scant evidence that government can do anything about it.

        • john byatt says:

          what rot

          this is what they say

          “Should the evidence become compelling that global warming is due to human activity”

          97% consensus in the peer reviewed literature and they do not think that is compelling?

          you voted for idiots

        • J Giddeon says:

          Pick one phrase out of context out of several paragraphs and misrepresent the intent. Intellectually bankrupt. but at least you now concede that they have a policy so we’ve made some progress in your education.

        • john byatt says:

          they do not have a policy

          out of context?

          you have a problem with cognitive bias

          “Should the evidence become compelling that global warming is due to human activity, that such global warming is likely to have significantly negative consequences for human existence, and that changes in human activity could realistically reverse those consequences, the LDP would favour market-based options.”

          it is the classic denial position
          the climate is always changing
          it is not due to humans, no compelling evidence
          if it is it may not be bad, no effin idea
          if it is we cannot do anything about it
          if we can then we would favour market based options

          three steps before they get to acceptance and taking action

          guess what?, they will never get there, you voted for this non policy?

        • J Giddeon says:

          You refered to the famed 97% consensus. That consensus is that at least 50% of the warming in the second half of the 20th C was caused by man. That’s it. And even that is under attack now.

          So saying that climate always changes or that it might not be all bad or that we may not be able to do anything about it isn’t in opposition to the 97%. We have no idea what percent think the earlier warming was manmade or what percent think that AGW will become DAGW or what percent think that reducing emission by this or that amount will make any difference.

          Oh and did I mention that I voted for them for reasons other than their CC policy?

        • john byatt says:

          it is not about what people think why can’t you get that through your numbskull?

          it is the consensus in the peer reviewed literature

          are you sure you accept the science, i think you may have told a porky.

          “That consensus is that at least 50% of the warming in the second half of the 20th C was caused by man. That’s it. And even that is under attack now”

          under attack ? rules here are if you make such a statement you must provide a link.

        • J Giddeon says:

          yes there is a claimed consensus in the literature that at least 50% of the warming in the late 20th Century was caused by man.

          There is no demonstrable consensus on all the other issues you raised.

          As to the rules here, it seems to me they are not really enforced otherwise your childish ad homs would be stamped out. But since you are unaware that Cook et al remains controversial here is but one link to give you an inkling of what’s going on :

        • john byatt says:

          do you know the difference between the 97% consensus and 95% IPCC confidence level?

          now where is the link to your claim?

        • john byatt says:

          a blog post as your evidence of the consensus being under attack, what no paper,

          watts is whinging here, Tol’s comment rejected by ERL

          are you sure that you accept the science?

        • J Giddeon says:

          “do you know the difference between the 97% consensus and 95% IPCC confidence level?”


        • J Giddeon says:

          “a blog post as your evidence of the consensus being under attack, what no paper,”

          Not yet but Tol strikes me as persistent.

          Why is Cook reluctant to hand over his data? That’s always a give-away in my experience.

        • john byatt says:

          instead of bleating why not just go over to SKS and in the comments ask them,

          what data do you want?

        • john byatt says:

          You do not even seem to understand what Tol has said

          in fact he (TOL) agrees that the consensus documented by Cook et al. exists. The author offers much speculation (e.g. about raters perhaps getting tired) which has no place in the scientific literature, he offers minor corrections – e.g. that the endorsement level should not be 98% but 97.6% if only explicit endorsements are counted.

          and you write “Not yet but Tol strikes me as persistent”

          he is complaining about 0.4%?.

    • J Giddeon says:

      When the ALP introduced all their climate policies,particularly the tax, they thought Australia could be an example to the world and that, somehow, the world would joyously follow that example.
      It may yet turn out that they were right…but not in ways they thought.

    • john byatt says:

      You probably missed it on Jo nova bill?


      • Bill Jamison says:

        Since I rarely read Jo Nova I’m sure I did miss it. But then I know you read it regularly so if there’s anything interesting I can count on you to post it here – without attribution of course!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: