 |
AUSTRALIA: CARBON, WATER, CLIMATE, GREENHOUSE, POLICIES, TAXES, DEBATES, EMMISSIONS TRADING  Constructing the largest personally owned, concepted and deployed web site and communications network like no other A comprehensive climate reference guide and commentary web site within the Kevin R Beck Mosaic Portal web network  The Facts and Arguments of Climate Change...click |
 
IPA Occasional papers - Energy & Carbon Tax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 ....click.... Document, and article distribution, count for outgoing communications from the Mosaic Forum ... click here to go  Energy ... click here |
|
There is detachment from reality across the carbon tax debate. Celebrities have eben hired by external activists to spin the government's policies. Where did the activists get the funds? Some say GetUp funded the campaign. Short on the necessary talent for deep debate about her government's policies, Ms Julia Gillard has a propensity for stalling, ambiguity and generalities, using her feminine charm and charisma when all else fails. No doubt that the labor government welcomes this short campaign. It will of course back fire on the organisers. A waste of money sadly. This is what she said about the carbon tax on the ABC Q&A programme (March 14, 2011)- the consumer is there in the shop with their compensation in hand and they can decide to buy a product that is from a major polluter or one that is made from renewable energy. Is she serious? The majority of electricity comes from coal and almost eveything therefore has a component of carbon in its creation. Or are we to buy imported products which are also from carbon? In another reply, regarding uranium - nuclear policy she said that the labor party policy was not to use nuclear, because Australia had an abundance of wind, solar, tidal and other renewables refusing to say that coal was the major source of fuel. Gillard will put her own ideology ahead of reality and the nation and as such Ms Gillard is unsuitable to be Prime Minister. The alternative Tony Abbott, is a desert, seemingly incapable of any new ideas, but he may be less dangerous. Federal labor Minister Greg Combet aims to beat the Opposition leader Tony Abbott in the debate about a carbon tax. He continually reasserts, that the government is wholy committed to the implementation of a carbon price in 2012. Who does Mr Combet think are the real, and most qualified and skilled, opponents? The Opposition leader Mr. Tony Abbott has no demonstrated underunderstanding of the complex world of energy. His public iterations are whatever he thinks will create the greatest media interest and coverage. This man is a lightwieght when it comes to policy visoon and innovation. For that matter few in the Australian parliament do. Mr. Abbott parrots one line media grabs over and over ad nauseum. The debate offerred by our legislators is shallow, short on facts and too often lies and misrepresentations. Heather Ridout, champion of Australian big business joined the labor circle of the power collective when Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister. She has recently separated herself from the labor fold. Ms Ridout may not like being associated with ideologs, mediocrity and in certain cases vandals. Then off course there are those who refuse to admit ...click. The Australian public generally is lazy, in educating itself as to detail, and will not bother to inform themselves regarding the actual role of carbon and climate in our environment and on our planet, preferring to embrace someone else's theories, arguments and logic. These may be the commercial radio shock jocks, average commentators in the press, and crude (current affairs) program presenters of rubbish content on commercial television. The ABC (Australia's public broadcaster) apaers ot be highly partisan in its contribution whilst trying to pretend that it is neutral. The Q&A (ABC) programme audience is stacked to one side of politics and ideological social thinking. A token representative (of the skeptics and so called deniers)is included in the panel on The Insiders, political current affairs programme on Sunday morning 9am and one weekday programme, Counter Point, at 4pm on ABC Radio National is their shrewish approach to balance. The Age Newspaper, in Melbourne, looks as if it lost its jounalistic credibility, and analysis skills, years ago. It is a pseudo green left environmental rag, using old print technology and layout methods. It is a cluttered, nasty looking, unwieldy piece of black ink leaving a smudge on one's hands. The Australian newspaper, far superior in layout presentation and breadth of coverage, is biased, or so it seems, against the labor Rudd - Gillard government perhaps diminishing its credibility. The tabloid press, such as the Brisbane Courier Mail, Sydney's Daily Telegraph and Melbourne's Herald Sun are not known for their lengthy analysis (except for the Andrew Bolt columns) more like print with pictures, for the attention deficit. The main newspapers in the rest of the country, particularly the Northern Territory publication, are not worth a reference in their failure to challenge, analyse and lead community thinking. Overall the Australian media is lazy, and in many incompetent, its quality of writing is random, often lacking substance, it plageurises material from the Internet and it relies for much of its content on someone else's efforts. This mediocrity, in most of the nation's media, has come about under the management, and control, of people who are not journalistsa nd not newspaper veterans. They lack vision and a passion for truth, and investigative, journalism. Free to air television stations, in Australia, are unilluminating, clone like enterprises buying cheap American product and presenting shallow, and often grubby, reality television. One exception being the other Australian public broadcsater, SBS. But it is starved of cash by its owner. The Australian media does not report on, or analyse, government legislation and political party policy in any depth. Editors, and programme content managers and presenters, parrot over, and over, their fantasies and the leming chant of the moment e.g. rifts between Rudd and Gillard, the gladiatorial nature of politics, the perceived rifts between members of the coalition, reporting the latest (manipulated) political poll which asked the views of a few hundred intellectually challenged people on the street. The Australian media lets the nation down. The price of carbon, necessary to attract investment in pollution reduction and renewable energy has to be about $A70.00 to $80.00 per tonne. Such a rate would bankrupt the economy and the nation. The generalist sweeping mumbling (permeated with sham giggling when she has no idea and needs to but time) that emanates from Ms Gillard, and the climate change and carbon tax, proponents about business wanting certainty and the warming of the planet by humanity and the other theories they trot out are not challenged in any meaningful way. Only one media commentator stands out from the crowd - Andrew Bolt. He continually challemges the stupidity, adherence to ideology, misrepresentation, distortion and lies put about by the government and sycophantic bureaucracy. To the rat bag chorus one can add the Greens party, the environmentalists and the pin up academic experts who, despite getting it wrong constantly, still hold credibility. The government's principle climate change commissioner Tim Flannery says that if every carbon polluting enterprise and all else was closed down it would take hundreds or thousands of years for the planet to come back to normal. What is normal? Andrew Bolt berates the scientific community, which is locked into its untenable position and is too ashamed to recant, He berates the opportunistic corporate types who want to create new trading regimes, like the national electricity market gamblers who bet on the price of electricity, In an emissions trading scheme we can expect that they will game the system and be the only winners. Federal Labor, and its Prime Minister and Ministers, have a tin ear, and can look quite incompetent and ignorant. gathering int Mr. Combet, Ms. Gillard and the senior leadership of the labor party are full of their own self and ego. Inexperienced, refusing to engage and debate their critics, they are labor party political career politician. They press on, despite the counter arguments and the imprecise nature of the science. There is no dramatic, and threatening, correlation between CO2 and climate change. Gillard's labor, along with labor state governments, are spending billions driven by ideological blind faith and their own intuition and righteousness. Australia is in the grip of nanny state politics and governance. Industry will, wher it can, pass the carbon tax through to the consumer and will not lower any emissions or retool. Under Australian labor's policy the nation will suffer cost imposts, and a decline in the national economy, and lifestyle, experience very large rises in energy prices around of 300% or more and subsequent rises in food, tranpsort, utilities and other products and services. Manufacturing will be crippled. This happens at $A20 per tonne. If we move to an Emissions Trading Scheme then life will become a struggle ("life was not meant to be easy" said former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser) and many businesses will be bankrupted or have millions whiped off their earnings before interest and taxes. After all of this has come to pass, no politician (labor, green or conservative) will ever held accountable, or responsible, or have to pay the price for their folly. They will be on indexed public pensions and benefits. There can not be enough compensation to offset the vandalism of the Julia Gillard labor government. (Kevin R Beck, Vandals in Australia's Governments, 2011) |
 There is no correlation between CO2 and Climate Change "It is sometimes claimed without justification that existing renewable energy sources -- such as wind, solar or biomass -- are not capable of substituting for coal-fired power stations. However, a recent set of studies for Australia and its states demonstrates the contrary." Source: Published in Australasian Science, Volume 26, No. 4, 36-38 (May 2005)"How to reduce CO2 emissions by 50%".... .. click here |
|
In 2011, before the Senate changes, the independents need to force a no confidence vote on Gillard and the federal labor government or risk our economic future. The Australian federal governments of Kevin Rudd, and Julia Gillard, along with their confidante party apparatchiks and key advisers are, to my mind, only interested in their beliefs, ideologies, perceived talents and capacities. They are not willing to listen to anybody who challenges them, they resort to ridicule and the "frumpy, bombastic attitude of Australia's first female Prime Minister, demeans her achievement of getting there. She has not exhibited the necessary qualities of true leadership, paling against the iconic labor party reformers, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. Ms Gillard showed her naivity when she cut a deal with the Greens condemning labor, and the nation, to mediocrity in pursuit of her own, and her colleagues interests, demonstrating that she has little regard for the public interest. On the final day of the parliamentary sitting she indulged herself in ranting vitriole, like some shrew. Vile spitting words were thrown at the leader of the opposition. Labor has no quality, and class, under the leadership of Ms Julia Gillard. These two labor governments, again to my mind, and looking at the assembled evidence, are the worst performing administrations in Australian governments' collective history. They are monumental failures, extrordinary waste and arrogant denial in the face of fact after fact. This takes spin and stupidity into a new realm of ignorance. poor administration and myopic self indulgence. Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Wong, Garrett and Combet have clearly shown that they have a minimal grasp of the complex issues that underpin energy supply, efficiency and reliability and the contribution (negative or positive) to the economy. Labor's approach to water security is as blind to reality and depth of detail and impacts. Dumb, and dumber every day, the collective climate change membership of the federal parliament, and the rat bag (those who are over zealaous) environmental proponents, are arguing gas as base load supply or wind, or solar, and in doing so they are going to well and truly wreck the Australian economy. It would be far better to have Martin Ferguson in charge of a multi-policy portfolio set, with Simon Crean, than the collective mediocrity of Rudd, Gillard et al. If the Australian population remains disengaged they can expect their energy bills to sky rocket by 600, 1000 and even 3000% innthose states where the environmentalists hold sway. They can expect to lose their livelihoods and ultimately end up the losers for having allowed thos lot to remain in federal parliament. state government (labor) counterparts, refuse to acknowledge or reply to correspondence, engage in open, and deliberative debate, preferring managed spin, lies and commivances. Julia Gillard offers platitudes, and motherhood, statements splattered with vitriolic rants. There is no open and interactive engagment between Gillard, her office, her Department and the Australian people. The labor party chooses who it will engage with anmd whom it will let in to the debate. One only has to look at the Murray Barling Basin fiasco to see how labor, and its independent appointed Authority people, engage with communities. She demonstrates a closed mind having formed her opinions about climate change with no apparent deep study, and understanding, of the veracity of the facts presented to her. One may ask is Ms Gillard gullible or not that bright? "Basin bid to calm fury, Michelle Grattan, October 18, 2010, Murray-Darling Basinenvironment.gov.au/water, Have Your Say on Planning Water For the Future. THE embattled Murray-Darling Basin Authority has responded to regional fury at its proposed hefty water cuts by ordering a study of the social and economic effects on communities. As the Gillard government and the authority run for cover, this will traverse similar ground to the parliamentary inquiry announced last week, chaired by independent Tony Windsor. .... Water Minister Tony Burke distanced himself from the authority's initial proposals ....Since the authority's guide for a plan for the basin was released on October 8, thousands of farmers have expressed outrage in meetings in the basin. (Source:Michelle Grattan, The Age Melbourne, October 18, 2010) I believe that a significant number of labor party Ministers, in governments across Australia and their advisers, and staff are ignorant, and amateurish. THey are very dangerous in government. I think that the federal Labor government needs to be put down in 2011 least the natiion suffers any more devastating policy implementation mishaps. 9Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the campaigns have begun.
|
| Counter DIGITS.com:All networked sites, forums and blogs
|
| COMMENTARY by KEVIN R BECK, Melbourne, Australia Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard has expressed her belief in climate change. Big deal so have most of the residents of the planet. That does mean she has any idea of what to do or any knowledge and experience. So how does Hal Lewis' resignation place her belief into perspective? As such she is a danger in the role of Prime Minister. Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society 6 October 2010 Dear Curt: When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be? How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example: 1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate 2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake. 3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work. 4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open. 5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council. 6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition. APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization? I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question. I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends. Hal Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, Chairman of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)  CO2 Emissions The federal labor government in Australia, the Greens, independents and some in the liberal party, along with a bunch of economists, academics and true believers in climate change, want a price placed on carbon, as soon as practiaclly possible. It is likely that Ms Gillard will dissemble and ring her hands, since she has not demonstrated a capacity for taking risks. Nor will she likely make a decision that might make her responsible and accountable. She has to date assiduoulsy avoided accountability. The fine balance of the Australian parliament is an added disincentive to action. Federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott opposes a carbon price. Rather than articulate the reasons with depth, and clarity, Mr Abbott prefers slogans, and sound bites - big new tax. His arguments usualy deteriorate the longer he is being questioned and examined. I tend to think that Mr Abbott does not do his homework, and actually has little personal knowledge, and ideas, about carbon and the methodologies for pricing it and the justification. However unlike Ms Gillard, Mr Abbott takes risks, and his record is one of doing so without demonstrating he knows the facts or the likely outcomes of his actions. As a former federal Minister he showed us that statistics are his thing and in the carbon world they are as clear as mud. The Greens are idologically driven. They should be viewed with scepticism. They have a history of choosing what best justifies their ideological position and their decisions, rather than examine the for and against with pragmatic reasoning. This will be a significant factor when they take their Senate seats in the federal parliament in mid 2011. The lone Green representative in the federal House of Representatives, Adam Bandt, does not have the support resources to enable him to examine all the material he will be given and the extensive legislative agenda. Tony Windsor, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie (independents) will most likely turn to trusted advisers in their electorates, or the extra staff they have been given by the Prime Minister, for analysis, advice. Looking at their advisory networks, and sources of information, this could be parlous. They need to build external sources of even advice and counsel. Carbon is more complex than the National Broadband Network (NBN) and one only has to look at the NBN debate, and implementation, to see the peurile, and shallow, nature of the mechanics of the parliament's examination of policy, and decision making, and the haphazard approach to significant issues in Australia's economy and society. Carbon pricing mechanisms can take many forms such as a market price per tonne of carbon in the traded sectors in any Trading Scheme regime, prices applied by Governments via taxation, or “shadow” prices applied by Governments in policies. It is the latter that the Australian federal labor government appears to be focused on is focused on. The Prime Minister believes in Climate Change indicating she is prone to herd mentality rather than independemt personal analysis. One of the issues to consider that herd mentalities are common. They rely upon peer and hierarchical systems of legitimacy. One or two senior members of the peer group create the argument and justification and the rest follow because to be left out is to risk alienation rom their own sphere of comfort, employment and community. Let's be clear on the reason that Ms Gillard is proposing a price on carbon. The purpose of carbon pricing is to help deliver the Government’s policy goals on climate change. Nothing more. Despite the belief of the Greens, et al, the purpose of carbon pricing is not primarily to “internalise the exte rnal costs” of carbon emissions. Carbon pricing is not the only policy tool needed by governments. There needs to be clarity over the different type s of carbon pricing. What measures will the government choose? Social cost methodology seeks to value the costs to society of a tonne of additional carbon emissions in terms of money. The discount factor used, for the value of moeny overtime, is critical. Too low and it makes the action immediately an imperative. That is how the Climate Change justification has been made. It uses a rate of between 1% and 2%, and a 50 - 200 year projection, to massively over state the costs of not doing something now. It is extraordinarily hard to value the fuuire and the nebulous assumed impacts. It is an economic fear factor that has bluffed and mislead policy makers. Marginal abatement methodology assesses the cost of cutting carbon emissions by an additional tonne, and compares the figure derived from this for the “cost” of the carbon emissions with other assumed impacts and outcomes. If innovation occurs, and this si waht the Grens and labor are banking on this methodology is flawed. The market methodology or market price is purpotedly the “real” one. Financiers and business people like it and use it and it is claimed that this is the one which genuinely affects business decisions. The market assessment is so accuraate that it missed the looming global financial crisis, is truly a herd mentality methodoogy. The proponents will cliam that the market price relates to a target that has been set; it is an approach which is in theory quite compatible with carbon budgets and the beliefs of the major members of the Common school of economics and business. It is the one that offers the best returns for the gamers, those who bet the market and for the banks and desk traders, who can create a whole new business as they have done fof energy trading in Australia. It enables them to slice and dice. Market price is not "real" it is a concoct of government policy. It is also relevant only to certain sectors of the economy and and does not bear much relation to other sectors such as transport and households. Laughably it is accepted because the others have failed or are believed to be highly flawed. So we settle for the one that seems to fit. It fits the government's budgets. The government is faced with a real dilemma. It has to determine what is carbon intensive in a dispassionate fashion and cannot simply say, as Julia Gilllard has done, that the days of the carbon fired dirty power stations are over. This demonstrates the propensity for politicians to talk off the top of their heads. Instead Gillard now faces a harder and more accounatble delivering fate. She and her advisers and cabinet must determine the critical questions as to to define the framework that states what is carbon intensive or high carbon, and at what levels the government must set an effective carbon escalator without driving up the base price of energy intensive deliverables. Or, why the consumer may pay dearly if they get it wrong. What should they do? Maybe leave carbon alone. It is overall harmless in the greater scheme of things and mostly beneficial to the planet. Not likely though. (Kevin R beck, Melbourne, Australia, October 2010) |
|
A POLITICAL PIPE DREAM OR A VERY DANGEROUS AUTHORITY? The Murray darling basion Authority A Danger to Australia's Economy and the fabric of our society in the eastern states of Australia. As governments, information sources, science and economy blossomed through the seventies and later, Australia's state governments largely remained in limbo (with the exception of the Hawke Keating economic reformist government at the federal level) never tackling the hard, and vexed, issue of water supply, and sustainable, practices, in one of the world's driest economies. State governments have not built any significant water catchments, and dams, for decades, failed to invest in water infrastructure, (except overly costly and moribund) desalination plants) and have allowed vested interests to take what limited water resources the nation has and use them as they see fit. There is no adequate state, and national audit, of water resources, no consolidated public and private construction and useage data and the state of water infrastructure. We do not know the effects of the water table, underground and surface water interactions by region and state, and the impacts and effects on our economy, society and environment. The authorities have been derelict. Today a "crisis" has been deliberately engineered by the dominant environmental interests, and jelly back politicians, to justify draconian action whilst seeking to insulate themselves from political accountability and responsibility. This avoidance is what created the Murray darling Basin Authority. It is now one of the most dangerous independent authiorities in Australia. The dseire of the Howard government to shed responsibility and accountability. Labor is now utilising the Authority similarly. Tony Burke regally says the decision is his. How magnanimous but that is not actually true. The Commonwealth has little influence other than setting the rules for the so called market operation. The states, infrastructure and water owners, are more powerful. The states have to approvea nd regulate the plans that are submitted under the Authorities umbrellas. Teh Authority's charter is focused totally on the environment. The legislators now see environment and economy as synonymous and homogenous with the environment taking precedence. They serve ideology not the voter and taxpayers of the nation. "The SDLs will take into account the best available science, and the ‘precautionary principle’. According to this principle, if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.... A central element of the Basin Plan is an environmental watering plan to restore and sustain the wetlands and other environmental assets of the Basin and to protect biodiversity dependent on the Basin water resources. This plan will safeguard existing environmental water, plan the recovery of additional water, and coordinate the use of environmental water across the Basin. The environmental watering plan will contain, in relation to the Basin: • environmental objectives for water-dependent ecosystems • targets to measure progress against these objectives • a management framework for environmental water • the methods used to identify key environmental assets requiring water • the principles and methods which will set the priorities for applying environmental water • the principles to be applied in environmental watering. " (Source: The Basin Plan A Concept Statement, Developed by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority Published June 2009) The Authority deals with the water management powers,water act, water trading and water market. One assumes that it has to negotiate with the states and the infrastructure operators acrediting the states' plans. The states are not known for their forward thinking, vision and national interest concerns. Moreso with their parochialism, self centred agendas and political interests including maintenance of power. The Commonwealth is a small player in the Australian water market trading. What is not clear is what regulatory powers will be imposed to deliver the objectives decided upon. In October 2010 the Authority released its draft consultation paper. The hysteria that preceeded its release, the ramping up of fear by the media, pumping the stoty for its scare effects, and the claims by some spokespeople, in the affected rural areas, that there would be rioting in the streets demonstrates the immaturity that dogs clear, cool and rational debate, on major political, social and economic issues within Australia. State, and federal, governments, rather than managing and fostering the debate in the public interest facilitating everyone's input play politics, manipulate and spin the exercise to suit theirn own agendas and interests. The federal Minister Tony Burke immediately rushed in and said there woild be "no compulsory acquisition of water entitlements", effectively rendering the exercise a waste of time with a knonw political reality. Governments have no stomach for hard reforms where there is a high political risk to their maintenance of power. The Australian government, under Kevin Rudd and now Julia Gillard, seems extraordinarily inept, and unaware of what it takes to govern effectively with precision and foresight. Add their inadequacies to the state governments, and their own bureaucracies, and Austraia finds itself in the fgrip of debilitating and dangerous mediocrity. Numbers casually fly around. The media says the report recommends actions that will wipe $A1 billion of our food production, cause wide spread regional unemployment and the demise of regional towns and cites. The same theoretically based assumptions that are used to sell other failed privatisation policies, the creation of new industries and opportunities, more training and the other motherhood ideas that are now truly discredited but still trotted out by the planners, and politicians, still abound. The review period of one year will allow for more bulldust, rumpour mongering and stupidity to emerge, as Australia finds itself at the mercy of the social engineering ideological shapers. Apparently we must all suffer a lower level of life style and curb our excesses in the name of "the environment" and the valuable wet lands and other precious sanctuaries that the greater number of people have never visited, never will and know little about. Welcome to another labor induced farcical circus. The proposed carbon pricing, and water policies, energy and other ideas of Australia's governments and dominant interests, will cost the people of Australia, personally, billions. It will result in Australia becoming a nett importer of food.(Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia, October 2010) |
|
September 2010: THE CON REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMICS I PREDICT THAT YOU SHOULD ADD $A3,000 plus per year to your energy bills and another $A5,000 to your living costs in 2011 - 2013 adn lower your exposure to housing and property. Click here.  The Australian labor party, and the Australian Greens, continually point to horrific numbers for the economic impact of climate change. They talk in the billions. They postulate events anywhere from a few years to decades even fifty years adn 200 years. The economic studies used to justify these claims incorporate the use of a discount factor. The value of $A1.00 today at a future period in time. The lower the discount factor and the longer the period, the greater the cost claims will be. The higher the discount factor, the lower the cost. Thus what rate is used in Stern? (1.4%). The opportunity cost of capital is fundamental to climate change amelioration decisions, and is a ignificant input to a discounted cash flow analysis. Small changes in the discount rate may have a big impact on the Net Present Value (and Internal Rate of Return) of action under Climate Change. If the selected discount rate is too high, otentially the cost around climate change appears bad, and if too low, climate change investments will look attractive. The Australian Productivity Commission uses a discount factor of 4%. Why the variation between the two? The answer is obvious. It is probably easier, and less costly, for the community to defer the economic activity around climate change until when the event occurs and then it is funded and dealt with. The doomsday sayers would not like this. Now it is not climate change it is carbon. Crbon is the enemy. Well that is not true either. "n a molecular level, carbon is a wonderful chemical joiner. Seemingly without prejudice, carbon atoms will combine with almost any other element to form the more complicated building blocks of life. "It's atomic Velcro," says Roston. (The Carbon Age: How Life's Core Element Has Become Civilization's Greatest Threat, May 26, 2009_ - In Time Magazine, GOING GREEN Why Carbon Is Not a Bad Word, By Bryan Walsh Sunday, Jul. 27, 2008: Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1826813,00.html#ixzz0y959pdqW Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1826813,00.html#ixzz0y94NvdgA). Now the go is a price on carbon. Are they mad? I think that the proponents of a carbon tax have little idea as to what they are proposing or its effects. The plastics that can be found in everything from your chair to the space shuttle contain carbon — as does, of course, our energy supply. Thus everything just about will be taxed. This will add billions to the cost of living in a modern society. They want an end to carbon, then they want an end to life. Governments in Austarlia mandated that energy suppliers have to build 2% or more renewable sources into their supply agreements. The cost of a megawatt of wind energy, in Australia, today is circa $A70.00. This is eight to ten times dearer than a megawatt of fossil brown fuel. The renewable projects in Australia are going broke because they need a lot more than $A70.000 a megawatt to fund their activities. Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia |
An election based on false beliefs, spin and brazen misinformation. The Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, told us that labor will legislate so that no dirty coal power stations will be built in the future. Thus we see the bias. She states that coal power stations will have to be retrofiited and any new station will have to meet stringent "clean coal" regulations. This, according to her limited knowledge, will include sequestration, carbon capture. In the same package of inane proposition is a billion dollars for national grid development to ensure that renewables raised in the remote parts of the country will be efficiently delivered to the population centres. A billion dolllars will barley pay for a transmission line of a few hundred kilometres let alone a web delivering the fantasies of a fevered, singular political mind in seek of governmment. Never mind that carbon sequestration is not proven, may do nasty things to the underworld, and will be mightily expensive and never mind that the, ill informed, consumers will suffer energy price rises of 300% or higher if such policies are implemented. Also never mind that she tells furphies when she says that the temperature of the earth is rising. It is not warming, it is getting coller. In this poorly thought out policy set a whole community, in the Latrobe Valley, of Victoria will be put to th sword again. They were subjected to pillage in 1992 when labor, and liberal, governments privatised the Victorian power industry in pursuit of the nebulous, and contrived, national grid. They also misrepresented facts and to my mind lied to the community. Everyone who had an interest in ensuring that happened bent the facts and the truth, withhled information and stifled debate. What will happen when the Australian nation realises that it needs more energy that only coal stations can supply? It will be too late to plan and build them, much like the failure to build dams and other infrastructure. We will have to build more and more gas using up a smaller finite resource. There is also the problem that power supply is the province of the states and not the federal government. Ms Gillard has already shown that she, and her agents, are inept at delivery of things. Ms Gillard has learnt nothing from the Rudd exercise, the propensity to spin and engage in hollow endless rhetoric. Her arsenal of offerings in this election are not solid policies, they are hedging words and dissembling nonsense. Ms Gilllard's propositions for these policies start from a flawed base, carbon is bad. The greens are hysterical in their hatred of carbon and coal. They border on mental paranoia. Ms Gillar is wring when she implies that climate change science is a given, in favour of her perspectives, and that the world is warming. A woman in Sydney, featured in the Australian newspaper, Saturday 24 July 2010, pictured in her garden, says that everyone can have solar and there will, in her opinion, be no need for another power station. This demonstrates the basic ignorance of many people in the community, about energy, electricity and transmission, particularly those besotted with the romantic notion of self sustaining, clean living. Residential energy (gas and electricity) uses a miniscule of a state, and a nation's, energy output. Putting solar in all houses has a minor impact on emissions. What jobs will her community have without industrial energy and carbon fossil fuel and commodities? Ms. Gillard plans a community assembly of 150 people drawn from the electoral role, to study climate change for a year and reach a concensus. What drivel. They will not reach a concensus unless they all are chosen from a single mind set demographic. The average person is not capable of assimililating the complex science and its off shoot disciplines and tentacles. Such requires not only theory ut also practical knowledge and experience. It is obvious that Ms Gillard has no knowledge of the actual process of producing electricity and the attendant technologies. Kate Carnell, ex Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, and now an industry association spokesperson, wants industry representation in the citizen's assembly. If there has to be an assembly then they should not get a seat because industry has a set agenda, the representative will be a pawn and industry associations have many ways of prosecuting their case. It is the loud interest groups that have derailed the debate to date and put about the falsehoods. Writing of falsehoods, consider liberal opposition in the federal parliament, Andrew Robb, who laughingly says that there is a citizen's assemblyalready, the parliament. As if the Australian parliament is representative of the people! The parliaments of Australia are "managed, corrupted and corroded" institutions, the playground of a handful of political power brokers and manipulators, with questionable morals and ethics. They are detached from the ordinary ctizen and he may well ponder that the people generally have no respect for politicians and political party apparatchiks. The two political parties decide who will be the majority representatives, in our assemblies, and once in parliament those representaatives must follow the party line and decisions. Thus we enetr another week of weasle words and filibuster. A small Australia suits the small minded. |
|
The Campaign To Stop The ETS |
"One of the enduring pillars of the climate change issue is that the temperature of the Earth is increasing at an unprecedented rate … we’ve heard it a million times over the past few decades. However, it is well known that the temperature of the Earth has not increased over the past decade, and the lack of recent warming is now receiving serious consideration in the leading scientific journals." (Source: World Climate Report, February 1, 2010) |
| Counter DIGITS.com:All networked sites, forums and blogs
|
HOW LONG HAS AUSTRALIA'S FEDERAL GOVERNMENT KNOWN? As 2009 ends Kevin Rudd's attempt to walk the world stage on climate change and to create an ETS will fall into tatters and he will abandon his "moral imperative" demonstrating the paucity of his commitment and his stamina. The Australian federal government, lead by Prime MInister Kevin Rudd, has long used selective data to justify its position and policy on Emissions Trading. He has been disingenous in his statements and ridiculed those who would question him and the glass house he has built. This Prime Minister has no idea of the intricacies and the forces that confront him on his crusade. Kevin Rudd will be proven to be a hollow conviction politician. A caricature to be derided for his insults to those who can think without being directed. Kevin Rudd's staff are as bereft of the cominh events as he is. Bye bye to Rudd's climate change and the ETS. The question arises as to how long has the Prime Minister, The Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, known that what they were telling us was, and is, not true. Now their cover is blown they are somewhat silent. Perhaps they are in shell shock, or damage mode, as we take apart their theories, arguments and plans, expsoing their mendacity. What are the several hundred new public servants within the Climate Change Department doing if the bedrock of the government's justification has melted? What are the Australian state's, and territories, new positions, and policies, on climate change and the unravelling of their own rubbish policies and justfications? I expect that the labor party Ministers at federal, state and territory levels will act as if nothing has changed and will be pig headed in their pursuit of their own ideology and views. They will spin, at every turn, creating an illusion of never having made a mistake. (Kevin R Beck, February 2010) "The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history. Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters: A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009" (Source: World Climate Report, October 6, 2009) "UN science report which stated Himalayan glaciers would melt within 25 years 'was a guess' By DAVID DERBYSHIRE, 18th January 2010 Claims by the world's leading climate scientists that most of the Himalayan glaciers will vanish within 25 years were last night exposed as nonsense. The alarmist warning appeared two years ago in a highly influential report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At the time the IPCC insisted that its report contained the latest and most detailed evidence yet of the risks of man-made climate change to the planet." Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1243963/UN-science-report-stated-Himalayan-glaciers-melt-25-years-guess.html#ixzz0cw1TMdZF" (Source: Mail Online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1243963/UN-science-report-stated-Himalayan-glaciers-melt-25-years-guess.html) Here in Australia, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Climate Change Minister, Senator Penny Wong and Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, have all claimed the science and evidence based fact for their arguments and dire predictions. Inter alia, "Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.), IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 104" (Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm) "We're already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting,... Cliamte Crisis, http://www.climatecrisis.net/climate-change.php) The Australian labor government based their claims of a need for an Emissions Trading Scheme in Australia on the science of climate change and the evil demon - carbon. In the parliaments they have cast asperions on the integrity of people and issued insulting remarks. Now these three are silent. Thweir spin doctors and parastic manipulators of truh amd fact are working on a new fiction to extract the Prime Minister and two Ministers from an embarrassing situation. Denigrating those who questioned them or dismissive in their attitudes they are being shown to have been gullible. Very busy people, relyting on others, and simply swallowing the tripe put before them. The reserachers in the Australian Department of Climate Change should surely be questioned as to their reserach, and analysis, capabilities and indepndent thinking capacities. (Kevin R Beck, January 2010) " ClimateGate's Michael Mann Received Stimulus Funds By NOEL SHEPPARD From the Media Research Center A scientist in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal received economic stimulus funds last June. As NewsBusters reported on November 28, Penn State University is investigating Professor Michael Mann, the creator of the discredited "Hockey Stick Graph," for his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming. According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research. With this in mind, NCPPR issued a press release Thursday asking for these funds to be returned: In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy. " (Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575005412584751830.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) JANUARY 16TH, 2010 16:50, Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations (Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/) ANUARY 14TH, 2010 23:19, Dodgy GISS temperature records exposed: the US Climategate? (Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/) JANUARY 14TH, 2010 9:56, 'AGW? I refute it THUS!': Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009 (Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/jamesdelingpole/) The collateral damage from the emails is large ClimateGate doesn’t just bring down the scientists who wrote the emails, it brings down all the institutions and organizations that were supposed to have exacting standards and ought to have exposed the crimes years ago. The men whose work was so bogus, were lauded by the IPCC, published in Nature and Science, and defended by the National Academy of Science. This evidence of collusion, falsification, hiding data, and consistent deceit blows away the infrastructures of the practice of science. It doesn’t hurt the scientific method, but it destroys the premise that the IPCC expert review means anything, that peer review is capable of even picking up outright fraud, and that the National Academy of Science is functional. …the journals, the famous peer review, the committees with international reviewers: they have also been exposed as corrupted. In other words, all the human processes of science, the journals, the famous peer review, the committees with international reviewers: they have also been exposed as corrupted to some degree." (Source: The ClimateGate Virus, http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/the-climategate-virus/) |
WHO'S COOKING THE BOOKS?
 Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says that the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting is substantial. There is agreement to keep global warming at 2 dgrees. Who thought up this figure and how accurate is it? "On Tuesday, we heard via the Ria Novosti agency that the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data: The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations. The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century. The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. They concluded climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations and data from stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations. Paint-by-Numbers Science Imagine a paint-by-numbers kit with 12 colors of the spectrum — from purple and blue, green to yellow, orange and red, each numbered. When you finish coloring the areas in the coloring book or canvas with the appropriate color number, you have a color painting for the fridge. Suppose you got a version with only the number 1 and 2 colors marked. You have the colors — but what you end up with is a patchwork of two colors on a white background, with lines defining other areas. You could guess about the other colors, but the end result may not be what the original creator had in mind. Believe it or not, this very simple analogy applies to the claims of global warming.... And NASA uses the GHCN, applying their own adjustments, as we reported in this story: Perhaps one of the biggest issues with the global data is station dropout after 1990. Over 6000 stations were active in the mid-1990s. Just over 1000 are in use today. The stations that dropped out were mainly rural and at higher latitudes and altitudes — all cooler stations. This alone should account for part of the assessed warming. China had 100 stations in 1950, over 400 in 1960, then only 25 by 1990. This changing distribution makes any assessment of accurate change impossible." (Source: Climategate: … And Just Like That, the Warming’s Gone (PJM Exclusive) The Russian paint-by-numbers data. The CRU data matching NOAA and NASA. What's left?, December 17, 2009 - by Joseph D'Aleo, James Delingpole, in the Telegraph, noted Wednesday: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/daleo-and-just-like-that-the-warmings-gone-pjm-exclusive/) |
|
POLITICIANS ARROGANCE AND HUBRIS
The leaders of the world, at the Copenhagen Climate talks, in December 2009, have decided that they will alter the future of the world by keeping global warming at, or below, 2 degrees. What arrogance is this that they think that they are capable of harnessing, and controlling, the natural order of things. To bring the planet to heel. Who arrived at this figure and how? There comes a time when we have to ask our political leaders, and perhaps ourselves, what is the extent of hubris, that man would assume they are the greatest impact, and influence, on this earth. What arrogance to to assume the power of the God being in their puny activities on this earth? (Kevin R Beck, December 2009) |
Did they deliberately set out to mislead us? It is not clear how Kevin Rudd arrives at strategy and who has influence? It is clear that the Australian labor party, or for that matter also the liberal, national and greens parties, have substandard intelligence gathering networks and systems. If the labor party had a sophisticated mechanism in place then they would not have been blindsided by Tony Abbott. They would also be well aware that the Australian electorate is not on board with the government's ETS (Emission Trading Scheme). They would also have a better understanding as to where to gather their information and identify the protagonists and the barrier creationists. The government's Emission Trading Scheme is under serious threat internally within Australia. Climate Change and Water Minister, Senator Penny Wong, has not covered all the bases and has failed to clearlt articulate the scheme. To simply put a "spin" argument on the web purporting to be a full justification is not the manner in which this issue should be approached. There are hidden forces, and interests, who intend to stymy and kill off the government's ETS. The process adopted by Kevin Rudd, regarding policy development is a myopic and bureaucratic one. The Australian media has focused on Mr Rudd's propensity for the "research and enquiry" based approach. What they have not looked at are the pitfalls in this approach. The practically oriented, invariably those who may have little regard for, or little deeper education, may eschew Mr Rudd's approach. They may prefer historical experience "If practitioners shun theory then they must rely on experience as a guide to action. In deciding on their response to a problem they draw on a range of options suggested by previous experience with that type of issue. However, “it is wishful thinking to assume that experience alone will teach leaders everything they need to know” (Copland et al, 2002, p. 75)." (in Theories of Educational Management, Tony Bush, http://cnx.org/content/m13867/latest/) The Climate Change Department of the Commonwealth government may have failed the Senator in its role since it is a new and powerfulk department at the apex of government policy. What has been the focus of this agency? "Niskanen argues that the size of the discretionary budget (Y) reflects the reward structure in the bureaucratic environment...Niskanen begins by showing that bureaucrats maximize personal utility (wages and perks) by maximising the agency's budget. Actually, he corrects this statement. Instead: bureaucrats maximise objectives defined in terms of the agency's discretionary budget. (The discretionary budget is the difference between the budget parliament gives and the cost to the agency of producing its output)." (Source: Niskanen: Bureaucrats and politicians, Journal of Law and Economics 18 (December): 617-43.) "In an address to senior public servants in April 2008, the Prime Minister observed that, ‘evidence-based policy-making is at the heart of being a reformist government’. I want to explore why that is profoundly true; what it means in practice, and some implications for those of us in public administration. In doing so, I will draw on the experience of the Productivity Commission—which with its predecessors has been at the heart of evidence- based policy-making in Australia for over three decades—to distil some insights into what is needed across government generally if we are to be successful. It is as important that we have a rigorous, evidence-based approach to public policy in Australia today as at any time in our history. This country faces major long-term challenges; challenges that have only been exacerbated by the economic turbulence that we are struggling to deal with right now. When the present crisis is over, we will still have the ongoing challenges of greenhouse, the ageing of our population and continuing international competitive pressures. We should not underestimate the significance of those challenges, which place a premium on enhancing the efficiency and productivity of our economy." (Source of extract: Contemporary Government Challenges Challenges of evidence-based policy-making, Gary Banks AO, Australian Public Service Commission, http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications09/evidencebasedpolicy.htm) Thus we might say that the Prime Minister is more academic than bureaucrat, though there are overlaps in the profile of each type. In the case of the Australian ETS proposal there is little evidence to show that the examination, and choice, of this particular mechanism (ETS) to address climate change was academically, bureaucratically or politically astute. Because a topic is complex and detailed, that should not mean that there is no attempt to explain it. The government's behaviour in ths regard bears examination and demands explanation. The Honourable Minister, Senator Wong, appeared to my mind to speak all too often in generalities bristling with political barbs. Then the government, and particularly, Mr Rudd and Ms Wong, intertwine Climate Change and the ETS as if they are homogenous and synonymous. This is not merely disingenuous it bordres on both misrepresentation and questionable behaviour. The ETS has nothing to do with climate change. The ETS is a contrived (creatd) market instrument. The theory is that price and market forces bring about Emissions reduction, investment in renewable energy and changes in behaviour. "ETS will kill Tourism, Transport and Trade, By Viv Forbes Saturday, Canada Free Press, September 12, 2009 Emissions trading schemes proposed for the western world will guarantee another global financial crisis for tourism, transport and world trade. All carbon control schemes have at their core two essential features aimed at reducing man’s production of the harmless gas, carbon dioxide. Firstly, increasingly severe rationing of carbon dioxide (CO2) releases. And secondly, taxes on all permitted Emissions and punitive taxes on any excess. They are all Ration-and-Tax Schemes and they will all enforce arbitrary reductions by 2020. But not one car, truck, bus, train, plane or ship can move without producing CO2. There is no possibility that this will change significantly before the doomsday year of 2020, just a decade away. Therefore neither Australia nor New Zealand can cut CO2 Emissions by 2020 without slowly strangling all those industries that rely on moving people or goods. Our politicians should be asked, individually, what food, mineral products and travel they propose doing without in order to meet the 2020 cuts specified in their Ration-and-Tax Schemes. Australia and New Zealand comprise four lonely islands in the vast southern oceans which stretch from Africa to South America However, world population, political power and finance are concentrated far away in the Northern Hemisphere. Apart from a few stock horses used by drovers, the occasional sailing yacht, some suburban bicycles and some hydro power that moves trains, our transport fleets rely totally on petrol, diesel, gas and coal. There are no solar powered aeroplanes or sail powered ocean liners – all produce CO2. Neither country can import tourists, get mineral and food products to their cities or export goods to world markets without producing CO2." (Source of extract as cited, An Honest Climate Debate, Exposing the truth about the Man-Made Climate Change theory, http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/ets-will-kill-tourism-transport-and-trade/) |
|
From the creative mind of Kevin R Beck
Click on image 
Click on image 
