Month: December 2009

Let’s see now; we charge industry money for producing carbon and when they pass the cost onto the consumer we compensate the consumer with the money we charged industry in the first place.

At least that’s my take from Krudds latest promise

But Mr Rudd said 2.9 million low-income families would be fully compensated for the rises.

And 2.6 million of those – 90 per cent – would get a windfall, with compensation totalling 120 per cent of cost rises.

There would be cash assistance for 3.6 million middle-income households, half of which would be fully compensated for extra expenses.

Single pensioners would get an extra $455 a year as compensation and couples $686, Mr Rudd said.

The money would come from forcing industries to buy permits for the tonnage of carbon pollution they produced.

Is there anyway we could look at supporting and sponsoring R & D on alternative power sources instead of just taxing us? Maybe cut out the middle man!  For example, some of those billions spent on handouts and school halls could’ve been spent on research, surely?

Maybe he could even support the solar industry

Oh, and keep in mind Krudd’s promises are based on what? There has been zero reports on costings of his ETS so if he is going to make promises can we also be privy to the maths.

Take it from me right now and here – no one will be better off if this government has their way with the ETS mark I or even II or III for that matter.

And that includes the environment.

If you are disappointed in the outcome of the Greenie – Latter Day Alarmists convention you should diversify your reading.  The UN do not, as a rule, produce outcomes – they talk.

The UN could’ve saved a fortune and just paid for the telephone hook-up between Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao

I’m not the only cynic – Frank Furedi says;

What so many of the commentaries overlook is that international conferences have a solid track record of achieving next to nothing. Global jamborees are essentially talking shops that provide political leaders with an opportunity to strike a statesman-like pose. These are essentially photo opportunities for politicians who want to be seen to be doing something. As for the ever growing industry of international non-governmental organisations, summits are important public relations events that help demonstrate their importance. That is why both political leaders and the protesters have a common interest in maintaining the illusion that something really important may occur in Copenhagen. And if not here and now, then there will be a chance at Copenhagen + 5, and Copenhagen + 10.

Seems about right to me.

The failure of Copenhagen gives us a chance to actually have a reasonable debate on what we can actually do about Climate Change. I’d suggest the short answer is nothing unless we learn to alter the relative positions of the Earth and the Sun but that shouldn’t stop us looking for alternative power sources and trying to clean up our act.

Anyone who says Tuvalu is going to be swamped under metres of rising seawater should be barred from the debate, so should those who claim the Barrier Reef has a  terminal Climate Warming disease.  Hyperbole should be ignored which rules out most Left Wing members of the church and balanced science and reason needs to prevail.

Put downs like “Denier” and “Flat Earther” need to be exorcised from the lexicon as they smack of religious persecution.  To call me a “Flat Earther” doesn’t contribute to the debate, it justs puts it on hold until reason prevails.

If the media, and KRudd can claim weather anomalies like unseasonable heat waves in Sydney are evidence of  Global Warming why isn’t the reverse true with parts of the US and Europe currently under seige from blizzards.  If it’s hot it’s Global Warming; if it’s cold it’s just weather and all this despite the fact that evidence points to Global Cooling.

We haven’t had a debate yet; all we’ve had is members of a new religion doing their best to frighten the women and kids into converting and calling all skeptics names. If an inconvenient truth is mentioned the response is name calling. If the integrity and balance of scientific reports are questioned the response is the same.

If the Spanish Inquisition chaps were still in power skeptics would lighting up the night skies as the Greens and members of Disciplinary body of the Church of the Latter Day Alarmists tied us to stakes and cleansed us of our sins by fire.

AUSTRALIA faces having to make a hefty payout to help developing countries such as China and India cope with climate change in order to clinch a deal in Copenhagen.

Despite Australia facing a domestic Budget deficit of about $50 billion for the coming year, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Sunday Mail from Copenhagen that Australia would have to contribute to so-called climate “abatement” funds if India and China were to come into the climate-change tent.

The thought of making a ‘hefty’ payment to India and China with their huge Defence forces, space programs, fiscal surpluses and nuclear arsenals is bizarre, plain and simple and the sooner we get Rudd, Wong and their idiot followers home the better.