Fashionising.com > Fashion Forums > Current / World Affairs
Australian Federal Election - November 24
Column - Global warmings already frying brains
Andrew Bolt
I DONT know if global warming will destroy the earth, but it is already frying brains.
Check out Peter Garretts.
Labors environment spokesman has got the faith so bad - saying Labor would sign a deal to slash our emissions even if bigger countries wouldnt - that Labors leader, Kevin Rudd, had to shoot him.
Which makes two frontbenchers that Rudd has executed for saying precisely what Rudd himself has said.
Now theres a sign of a leader who is making it up as he goes along, and is so hungry for power that hell say anything and ditch anyone.
But its also a sign that when it comes to global warming, Labor hasnt a clue how to make the huge but useless cuts in emissions it has promised without bleeding us dry.
What a farce.
And what a mistake Rudd made to pick as his environment spokesman a salvation seeker who believes with his soul in catastrophic man-made global warming.
That came unstuck this week when Garrett told the Australian Financial Review that a Rudd government would sign a proposed new Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gases even if developing nations again refused.
If those poorer countries didnt join, it wouldnt be a deal-breaker for Labor, Garrett burbled, because what counted was being part of the process.
But what Garrett was outlining was a complete sell-out of our interests. Fancy a country that emits just 1.5 per cent of the worlds greenhouse gases agreeing to choke its economy, while huge China is free to let rip its own.
Heres the problem Garrett seemed unable to understand: This new Kyoto he was talking about is intended to take over in 2012 from the old - and failed - Kyoto Protocol.
The big failing of the old Kyoto agreement, in which all developed countries except Australia and the United States agreed to cut their greenhouse gases by set amounts (but mostly failed), is that it doesnt include countries such as India and China, which are growing frantically, belching more greenhouse gases by the year.
In fact, China is now overtaking the US as the biggest emitter in the world.
And with Chinas President Hu Jintao this month vowing to double the countrys wealth by 2020, expect volcanoes of new fumes from the East.
Indeed, China is already building one new coal-fired power station every week, every month, every year, and will make us look like fools fiddling in a gale, with our puny low-flow shower heads and barely spinning windmills - none of which will alter the worlds temperature by a quiver.
Never mind! said Garrett. Quizzed on the ABCs AM program on Monday by a reporter amazed Labor could let China so off the hook, he blithely repeated his lines.
The heat in the system is a consequence of the developed countries emissions, he claimed, ignoring inconveniently reassuring truths like the refusal of the globe to actually heat since 1998.
They need to commit to reduce. As they commit to reduce, the developing countries come on board.
How cute.
Garrett - who, oh dear, will handle these negotiations for a Rudd government - really does believe that China and India will feel so ashamed of themselves once they see Australia nobly signing a document, scrapping its gassy industries and slashing its growth, that they will be inspired to do exactly the same.
Out of the sheer goodness of their hearts.
Give me a break.
This isnt a Midnight Oil concert, where everyone sings along in the chorus. The hard men of Chinas Politburo dont do blushes, and know they must grow their country or die.
But lets not forget Rudd, who has so shamelessly adopted global warming as a New Labor brand. Too soon forgotten in yesterdays coverage was that he at first backed Garrett.
If we are to get countries like China and India to accept global targets themselves then developed countries must act first, he declared at 9.15am on Monday.
But by mid-afternoon, Rudd had ditched everything, including Garrett, as it became clear that he was signing on to a disaster, if not for Australia, then for his chances of election.
So Garrett was shoved back in front of the cameras to do an about-face.
Ah, ahem - in fact, appropriate development country commitments for the post-2012 commitment period . . . would be an essential prerequisite for Australian support, said the mortified rocker.
Which, translated into lyrics, means: No China, no deal.
And which, translated into politics, means: We agree with John Howard on the new Kyoto, after all.
Or, as Rudd would say, me too, because heres yet another policy hes copied from the Prime Minister, despite all his save-the-planet talk.
Neither Rudd nor Howard will sign a new Kyoto Protocol unless developing countries promise emissions cuts, too.
What a concession.
After all, isnt global warming meant to be the issue that most defines the difference between Howard and Me too Rudd?
But so barren is Labor of any real policy difference with Howard that it was more than a mistake when its Treasury spokesman, Wayne Swan, tried yesterday to calm jitters about his lack of experience, or confidence, by assuring journalists that if elected, I will take the advice of the Treasurer, the Treasury, sorry.
Were sorry, too.
But at least Labor has now reversed its stand on the new Kyoto deal, so it now echoes Howards. So whats the problem, youre asking, right?
Well, heres a few lessons you might draw. First, Labors environment spokesman is so messianic that hed sell Australian jobs for a useless gesture to save the earth.
Garrett sure has got religion bad.
Second, a Prime Minister Rudd will be no team player, having cut Garrett loose this week, just as he dropped foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland for repeating Rudds own promise to try to save even the Bali bombers from capital punishment.
And, third, theres actually nothing either party can really do about global warming other than kill our economy.
Even if human gases really are heating up the world to hell (which seems exaggerated), nothing we do will make a blind bit of difference without countries such as China. Especially China.
And why expect China to cut its gases, when even rich and preachy Britain wont? Just this month, Britains Prime Minister was warned by one of his ministers that there was no way Britain could get 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, after all. Just too expensive.
So lets cut all Labors slogans, its waffle about meaningless documents, and its setting of never-never targets of cuts in our gases by 2050, when many voters will be dead.
Lets instead have something tangible - like firm promises to cover just Labors first term in office.
So tell us, Mr Rudd:
1. What will your greenhouse policies cost us in spending and lost growth?
2. What will your policies cut our emissions by in your first three years?
3. And what difference, to the nearest degree, will this make to the worlds temperature by 2010?
The answer to that last one is zero, isnt it?
Which makes Garretts spasms and backflips over a deal hell never sign seem even more farcical.
To the few of us still rational, that is.
Andrew Bolt
I DONT know if global warming will destroy the earth, but it is already frying brains.
Check out Peter Garretts.
Labors environment spokesman has got the faith so bad - saying Labor would sign a deal to slash our emissions even if bigger countries wouldnt - that Labors leader, Kevin Rudd, had to shoot him.
Which makes two frontbenchers that Rudd has executed for saying precisely what Rudd himself has said.
Now theres a sign of a leader who is making it up as he goes along, and is so hungry for power that hell say anything and ditch anyone.
But its also a sign that when it comes to global warming, Labor hasnt a clue how to make the huge but useless cuts in emissions it has promised without bleeding us dry.
What a farce.
And what a mistake Rudd made to pick as his environment spokesman a salvation seeker who believes with his soul in catastrophic man-made global warming.
That came unstuck this week when Garrett told the Australian Financial Review that a Rudd government would sign a proposed new Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gases even if developing nations again refused.
If those poorer countries didnt join, it wouldnt be a deal-breaker for Labor, Garrett burbled, because what counted was being part of the process.
But what Garrett was outlining was a complete sell-out of our interests. Fancy a country that emits just 1.5 per cent of the worlds greenhouse gases agreeing to choke its economy, while huge China is free to let rip its own.
Heres the problem Garrett seemed unable to understand: This new Kyoto he was talking about is intended to take over in 2012 from the old - and failed - Kyoto Protocol.
The big failing of the old Kyoto agreement, in which all developed countries except Australia and the United States agreed to cut their greenhouse gases by set amounts (but mostly failed), is that it doesnt include countries such as India and China, which are growing frantically, belching more greenhouse gases by the year.
In fact, China is now overtaking the US as the biggest emitter in the world.
And with Chinas President Hu Jintao this month vowing to double the countrys wealth by 2020, expect volcanoes of new fumes from the East.
Indeed, China is already building one new coal-fired power station every week, every month, every year, and will make us look like fools fiddling in a gale, with our puny low-flow shower heads and barely spinning windmills - none of which will alter the worlds temperature by a quiver.
Never mind! said Garrett. Quizzed on the ABCs AM program on Monday by a reporter amazed Labor could let China so off the hook, he blithely repeated his lines.
The heat in the system is a consequence of the developed countries emissions, he claimed, ignoring inconveniently reassuring truths like the refusal of the globe to actually heat since 1998.
They need to commit to reduce. As they commit to reduce, the developing countries come on board.
How cute.
Garrett - who, oh dear, will handle these negotiations for a Rudd government - really does believe that China and India will feel so ashamed of themselves once they see Australia nobly signing a document, scrapping its gassy industries and slashing its growth, that they will be inspired to do exactly the same.
Out of the sheer goodness of their hearts.
Give me a break.
This isnt a Midnight Oil concert, where everyone sings along in the chorus. The hard men of Chinas Politburo dont do blushes, and know they must grow their country or die.
But lets not forget Rudd, who has so shamelessly adopted global warming as a New Labor brand. Too soon forgotten in yesterdays coverage was that he at first backed Garrett.
If we are to get countries like China and India to accept global targets themselves then developed countries must act first, he declared at 9.15am on Monday.
But by mid-afternoon, Rudd had ditched everything, including Garrett, as it became clear that he was signing on to a disaster, if not for Australia, then for his chances of election.
So Garrett was shoved back in front of the cameras to do an about-face.
Ah, ahem - in fact, appropriate development country commitments for the post-2012 commitment period . . . would be an essential prerequisite for Australian support, said the mortified rocker.
Which, translated into lyrics, means: No China, no deal.
And which, translated into politics, means: We agree with John Howard on the new Kyoto, after all.
Or, as Rudd would say, me too, because heres yet another policy hes copied from the Prime Minister, despite all his save-the-planet talk.
Neither Rudd nor Howard will sign a new Kyoto Protocol unless developing countries promise emissions cuts, too.
What a concession.
After all, isnt global warming meant to be the issue that most defines the difference between Howard and Me too Rudd?
But so barren is Labor of any real policy difference with Howard that it was more than a mistake when its Treasury spokesman, Wayne Swan, tried yesterday to calm jitters about his lack of experience, or confidence, by assuring journalists that if elected, I will take the advice of the Treasurer, the Treasury, sorry.
Were sorry, too.
But at least Labor has now reversed its stand on the new Kyoto deal, so it now echoes Howards. So whats the problem, youre asking, right?
Well, heres a few lessons you might draw. First, Labors environment spokesman is so messianic that hed sell Australian jobs for a useless gesture to save the earth.
Garrett sure has got religion bad.
Second, a Prime Minister Rudd will be no team player, having cut Garrett loose this week, just as he dropped foreign affairs spokesman Robert McClelland for repeating Rudds own promise to try to save even the Bali bombers from capital punishment.
And, third, theres actually nothing either party can really do about global warming other than kill our economy.
Even if human gases really are heating up the world to hell (which seems exaggerated), nothing we do will make a blind bit of difference without countries such as China. Especially China.
And why expect China to cut its gases, when even rich and preachy Britain wont? Just this month, Britains Prime Minister was warned by one of his ministers that there was no way Britain could get 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, after all. Just too expensive.
So lets cut all Labors slogans, its waffle about meaningless documents, and its setting of never-never targets of cuts in our gases by 2050, when many voters will be dead.
Lets instead have something tangible - like firm promises to cover just Labors first term in office.
So tell us, Mr Rudd:
1. What will your greenhouse policies cost us in spending and lost growth?
2. What will your policies cut our emissions by in your first three years?
3. And what difference, to the nearest degree, will this make to the worlds temperature by 2010?
The answer to that last one is zero, isnt it?
Which makes Garretts spasms and backflips over a deal hell never sign seem even more farcical.
To the few of us still rational, that is.
Somewhere in Rudds words is an answer trying to get out
Andrew Bolt
Three times Kerry OBrien asks Kevin Rudd what seemed a pretty clear question the first time:
KERRY OBRIEN: On your new mandatory renewable energy targets, do you know what or how those targets would impact on the coal industry in terms of jobs and so on?
First Rudd answer:
We have taken this position of a new ambitious but responsible nonetheless renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020 based on modelling which has been done by MMA, a modelling firm which is in conjunction with Monash University, looked at all the variables which go into the economic impact of such a renewable energy target. Theres one element to it which is what capacity do we have at present, within the Australian renewable energy industry, what capacity have we got to expand in solar and wind and hydro, in geothermal and the rest and secondly, the other element that theyve analysed carefully is the impact on the whole economy and the impact on electricity prices.
Second Rudd answer, with the question put more sharply: Then come back to my question, how will it impact on the coal industry in terms of jobs?:
In terms of the whole economy what the modelling from MMA demonstrates is that the total impact on the economy will be marginal over time. That is that they calculate that between now and about 2045 that youd be looking at a total impact on the economy of somewhere between $600 and $800 million or something in the vicinity of $45 per person over that period of time or something like $1 per person per year.
Third Rudd answer, to the question now put more clearly than ever: Do you know how this will impact on jobs in the coal industry?
It is quite clear from the analysis and the modelling done by MMA that the overall impact on the economy in terms of growth and jobs in the near to medium term would be negligible and in the longer term, the overall impact on the economy would be significantly positive.
It follows therefore when it comes to coal that the impact in the near term on the coal industry would not be of an order of magnitude which would be throwing people out of jobs. Let me add to it. If Mr Howard was truly serious and committed to the coal industry, why hasnt he matched our fund, our proposed fund of half a billion dollars to encourage people with clean coal technologies?
I dont see that commitment from him on the table. Ive been to the coal mining centre of this nation, they like our proposal to provide them with that assistance with clean coal technology because they know thats their pathway for their industrys future. Im confident weve got the right mix of policy there to encourage them as well as having a responsible renewable energy target out to 2020.
Is this guy for real?
A direct answer (not Rudd's) to a question about how much Labors greenhouse follies will cost looks like this:
ELECTRICITY bills for a family of four will climb by $40 to $120 a year under a Labor plan for 20 per cent of Australias electricity supply to come from green energy.
Simple, although up to $120 a year per family just for increased power costs alone sounds an awful lot more than that $1 per head, all up, Rudd mentioned.
But perhaps you can see why he prefers to blather.
Andrew Bolt
Three times Kerry OBrien asks Kevin Rudd what seemed a pretty clear question the first time:
KERRY OBRIEN: On your new mandatory renewable energy targets, do you know what or how those targets would impact on the coal industry in terms of jobs and so on?
First Rudd answer:
We have taken this position of a new ambitious but responsible nonetheless renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020 based on modelling which has been done by MMA, a modelling firm which is in conjunction with Monash University, looked at all the variables which go into the economic impact of such a renewable energy target. Theres one element to it which is what capacity do we have at present, within the Australian renewable energy industry, what capacity have we got to expand in solar and wind and hydro, in geothermal and the rest and secondly, the other element that theyve analysed carefully is the impact on the whole economy and the impact on electricity prices.
Second Rudd answer, with the question put more sharply: Then come back to my question, how will it impact on the coal industry in terms of jobs?:
In terms of the whole economy what the modelling from MMA demonstrates is that the total impact on the economy will be marginal over time. That is that they calculate that between now and about 2045 that youd be looking at a total impact on the economy of somewhere between $600 and $800 million or something in the vicinity of $45 per person over that period of time or something like $1 per person per year.
Third Rudd answer, to the question now put more clearly than ever: Do you know how this will impact on jobs in the coal industry?
It is quite clear from the analysis and the modelling done by MMA that the overall impact on the economy in terms of growth and jobs in the near to medium term would be negligible and in the longer term, the overall impact on the economy would be significantly positive.
It follows therefore when it comes to coal that the impact in the near term on the coal industry would not be of an order of magnitude which would be throwing people out of jobs. Let me add to it. If Mr Howard was truly serious and committed to the coal industry, why hasnt he matched our fund, our proposed fund of half a billion dollars to encourage people with clean coal technologies?
I dont see that commitment from him on the table. Ive been to the coal mining centre of this nation, they like our proposal to provide them with that assistance with clean coal technology because they know thats their pathway for their industrys future. Im confident weve got the right mix of policy there to encourage them as well as having a responsible renewable energy target out to 2020.
Is this guy for real?
A direct answer (not Rudd's) to a question about how much Labors greenhouse follies will cost looks like this:
ELECTRICITY bills for a family of four will climb by $40 to $120 a year under a Labor plan for 20 per cent of Australias electricity supply to come from green energy.
Simple, although up to $120 a year per family just for increased power costs alone sounds an awful lot more than that $1 per head, all up, Rudd mentioned.
But perhaps you can see why he prefers to blather.
Continuing from above;
You might recall this exchange on last nights 7.30 Report:
KERRY OBRIEN: On your new mandatory renewable energy targets, do you know what or how those targets would impact on the coal industry in terms of jobs and so on?
KEVIN RUDD: We have taken this position of a new ambitious but responsible nonetheless renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020 based on modelling which has been done by MMA, a modelling firm which is in conjunction with Monash University In terms of the whole economy what the modelling from MMA demonstrates is that the total impact on the economy will be marginal over time. That is that they calculate that between now and about 2045 that youd be looking at a total impact on the economy of somewhere between $600 and $800 million or something in the vicinity of $45 per person over that period of time or something like $1 per person per year.
The answer has infuriated a prominent professor who is expert in such things (but who does not want me yet to name him). He replies:
Rudd was less than honest in the way he described the modelling by MMA, especially in associating it with Monash University.
MMA is a consultancy company (and) the Centre of Policy Studies simply modelled the impact on the economy using the electricity prices generated by MMA. It is a member of the Australian Business Council of Sustainable Energy, and the report in question ... was produced on 2 October 2007, not for the ALP, but for Renewable Energy Generators Australia (an interest group with the obvious membership - Hydro Tasmania, Snowy Hydro Pacific Hydro, Roaring 40s, Solar Systems, Petratherm.... There is an obvious economic interest on the part of the clients.
The professor points out:
The report ... seems only to deal with the additional costs of Clean Energy Targets once the costs of emissions have been paid - and the impact felt on the coal sector
(I)t seems to me that Rudd has not only contracted out his policy analysis on the issue to a self-interested industrial sector but he has ignored the substantially greater part of the costs to which CET (clean energy targets) is merely marginal.
You might recall this exchange on last nights 7.30 Report:
KERRY OBRIEN: On your new mandatory renewable energy targets, do you know what or how those targets would impact on the coal industry in terms of jobs and so on?
KEVIN RUDD: We have taken this position of a new ambitious but responsible nonetheless renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020 based on modelling which has been done by MMA, a modelling firm which is in conjunction with Monash University In terms of the whole economy what the modelling from MMA demonstrates is that the total impact on the economy will be marginal over time. That is that they calculate that between now and about 2045 that youd be looking at a total impact on the economy of somewhere between $600 and $800 million or something in the vicinity of $45 per person over that period of time or something like $1 per person per year.
The answer has infuriated a prominent professor who is expert in such things (but who does not want me yet to name him). He replies:
Rudd was less than honest in the way he described the modelling by MMA, especially in associating it with Monash University.
MMA is a consultancy company (and) the Centre of Policy Studies simply modelled the impact on the economy using the electricity prices generated by MMA. It is a member of the Australian Business Council of Sustainable Energy, and the report in question ... was produced on 2 October 2007, not for the ALP, but for Renewable Energy Generators Australia (an interest group with the obvious membership - Hydro Tasmania, Snowy Hydro Pacific Hydro, Roaring 40s, Solar Systems, Petratherm.... There is an obvious economic interest on the part of the clients.
The professor points out:
The report ... seems only to deal with the additional costs of Clean Energy Targets once the costs of emissions have been paid - and the impact felt on the coal sector
(I)t seems to me that Rudd has not only contracted out his policy analysis on the issue to a self-interested industrial sector but he has ignored the substantially greater part of the costs to which CET (clean energy targets) is merely marginal.
my personal opinion is that the liberal party is a lot more apt in improving our economy. A prime example I can think of is the introduction of GST. At the time of its introduction the Liberals did not have enough seats in parliament to implement it & so needed to co-operate with the Democrats. It is because of the Democrats that GST is more complex than the Liberals proposed it to be. It was also the Democrats' acceptance of GST that led to its own demise. I think our economy needs GST. The liberals have enough seats now to change back GST to its simple structure it intended initially. However this is not politically feasible!
Another example would be tax rates cuts. The highest tax bracket use to kick in at about $50,000 prior to Howard's first election in 1996. Yet another example is managing inflation in Australia.
I'm definitely voting Liberals. Why vote otherwise?
Another example would be tax rates cuts. The highest tax bracket use to kick in at about $50,000 prior to Howard's first election in 1996. Yet another example is managing inflation in Australia.
I'm definitely voting Liberals. Why vote otherwise?
Post by heLenI don't think that the Democrats were wrong to accept the GST, but I think they've been wrong to distance themselves from their past. They've effectively moved themselves to within inches of existence long after most other parties and independents have accepted the newer tax system.
It was also the Democrats' acceptance of GST that led to its own demise. I think our economy needs GST.
helen: because howard is a trigger happy idiot?
did i mention the lying and deciet?
economic stability is one thing, but taking a country to war without consulting anybody, a fact which brought about australians being targeted by extremist groups (hello bali bombings) is a completely different one. Add to that the children overboard issue and we have a prime minister who lies for political gain and forgets that he is supposed to be working on our best interests. and if we think about the "free trade" agreement with the US, where we were sold short, its starting to look a little bit shady... i think the australian public wants a change, he has been here for a long time and the relationship seems to have gone sour...
did i mention the lying and deciet?
economic stability is one thing, but taking a country to war without consulting anybody, a fact which brought about australians being targeted by extremist groups (hello bali bombings) is a completely different one. Add to that the children overboard issue and we have a prime minister who lies for political gain and forgets that he is supposed to be working on our best interests. and if we think about the "free trade" agreement with the US, where we were sold short, its starting to look a little bit shady... i think the australian public wants a change, he has been here for a long time and the relationship seems to have gone sour...
Post Last Updated: 31.10.2007 at 19.10
Post by ruruDemocratic workings aside, you're not suggesting that the 2002 Bali Bombings were a result of the 2003 Iraqi Invasion are you? I'm not sure even Kevin Rudd would attempt to put spin on that one. Bob Brown or Natasha Stott Despoja on the other hand...
economic stability is one thing, but taking a country to war without consulting anybody, a fact which brought about australians being targeted by extremist groups (hello bali bombings) is a completely different one.
Leave A Comment
Create a Fashionising.com account to leave a comment or login.