An Open Letter to Abbott voters

430 comments

Login here

Register here

M. R.November 23, 2013 at 10:24 am

Wow. This is telling it like it is … Congratulations on speaking your heart – and so well!

PeterFNovember 23, 2013 at 10:31 am

Thanks Victoria: another great message. You may be interested to know that Direct Action is being renamed Carbon Reduction Action Plan to bring it into line with abbott”s thinking.

Tim StilesNovember 23, 2013 at 10:48 am

Dear writer of this letter,

Instead of name-calling and finger pointing, how about you look at the greed and selfishness that made the Labor party look so incompetent before the election?

How about thinking about the fact that the factions of the Labor party made it look so weak that maybe that’s why the majority of the country felt they had no choice but to vote Abbott?

How about the perceived incompetence of the Labor party making it more apparent than ever that we are voting for the least of two evils?

How about recognising that maybe the majority of the country might prefer stable leadership to backstabbing mutiny?

How about you take your self-righteous assumptions and insults about people you don’t know and stuff them in a sack?

Sincerely.

This guy.

Stephanie bNovember 23, 2013 at 10:51 am

This is incredible and powerful and everything that people need to hear. I may be young, not yet 18 in fact, but this resonates within me, most likely as the actions of today undoubtedly will help shape my future.
That people are so “delusioned” (brainwashed felt too strong a word) so as to believe everything Abbott says (or doesn’t say) is absolutely ridiculous.
We can’t move forward when the government is holding us back.

James CNovember 23, 2013 at 10:52 am

What a load of dribble.

MrHasBeanNovember 23, 2013 at 10:55 am

Amen

RoswellNovember 23, 2013 at 10:57 am

What is it about right-wingers that they always want people stuffed in a sack?

Is it because they can come up with nothing better to say?

“Vote for Abbott or we’ll stuff you in a sack”.

Gilli BruceNovember 23, 2013 at 10:57 am

Well said, Victoria. I wish there were ways to comunicate this ‘letter’ to more of them.

jayanarNovember 23, 2013 at 11:00 am

I wonder if the ignorant realise that nothing is going to actually happen to their electricity bills because the “huge increases” the Noalition love to carry on about are actually power companies price-gouging to maintain their poles-and-wires infrastructure.

This is the same infrastructure which has recently been badly damaged by unprecedented early bushfires and wild weather events. Can no one see the connection? Can no one see the irony?

We’d like to see a duly audited typical electricity account showing the mammoth price increase which has according to the idiocracy so impacted on “arr pensioners”.

And ’twas somewhat amusing to see the Ausgrid cherrypicker making its ponderous rounds the other day seemingly to clean insects from street light fittings. Is that something to do with the “carbon tax”?

There’s your “climate change price increase”, Abbott-voting morons.

GLNovember 23, 2013 at 11:01 am

Dear Tim Stiles
How about you look at what policies were passed through a difficult balance of seats by the Labor government.
How about doing some reading of your own and understand that most of the “incompetence” was chest beating by TA.
What impact did the Labor disunity have on the voter…… none except a bit of embarrassment over seas.

So it comes down to this. For some reason voters would rather eat sh*t because they dont like spinach.

Can you really compare the disunity in Labor with the absolute disgusting onslaught of poor decisions already made by the Abbott government.

MrHasBeanNovember 23, 2013 at 11:03 am

A couple of those morons to which you refer seem to believe they have the right to comment here Victoria. They’ve obviously missed the point that until they start to think for themselves instead of parroting Abbott and Murdoch’s mindless musings their opinion is worth less than the time it took to type it.

In the end we will win. Natural selection has a way of doing that. The problem is the amount of damage the shit-for-brains idiots have allowed to occur before we put them in all on a box and hammer the lid shut…

JulieNovember 23, 2013 at 11:05 am

Well done Victoria, and Tim Stiles I am more than a little bit over people talking about Labor’s excesses – the reason the Labor Party fared less well in the most recent election is due to the relentless lies the Liberals told about them in their election campaign, that’s all. If you want to talk about excesses go talk to Joe Hockey!

JayNovember 23, 2013 at 11:06 am

And cue Tim Stiles, the first commenter to exhibit exactly what this letter is talking about. Well done. As Victoria said, if you voted for Abbott you can jam it. I, like Victoria, having nothing good to say to likes of you.

Another guy.November 23, 2013 at 11:06 am

Great piece, well said. Sadly the general public is to self-centered and stupid to suck up some short term price increases to solve a long term problem. Tim Stiles I’ll acknowledge the Labor party were falling to pieces in the public arena and had some perceived incompetence, but at least they can string a sentence together! Abbot must either read straight from a brief or pause for 50 umms and ahhs whilst his tiny brain ticks away. Hard to believe he was a Rhodes scholar.. Labor might have lost the plot, but they are definitely the lesser of two evils.

Paul ScahillNovember 23, 2013 at 11:06 am

Well said Victoria I applaud you. You won’t upset him though he has no conscience, can’t show empathy and also he is pig headed and a moron. Controlled by a puppeteer (Murdoch ) who is also evil. Don’t wait for a reply, locked up and trying to write to Ind, he hasn’t a clue on anything. It will be one disaster after another with his moronic HOWARD bunch. Glad rally went well don’t think he’ll get it thru though. Feels good to vent, thanks for article. Praca

HeatherNovember 23, 2013 at 11:09 am

WoW Victoria. That was inspirational and expressed my fury perfectly.
I am not even yet thinking of the unborn grandchildren, but of those of my children’s generation, who I believe will face untold turmoil (bushfires, typhoons, starvation, millions seeking asylum – all this is already upon us now). Imagine even the next decade.

PeterFNovember 23, 2013 at 11:13 am

Tim Stiles “we are voting for the least of two evils” . You said it all really. Those who voted for Abbott decided he was ‘the lesser of two evils’. Re- read what Victoria has said and see if might just apply to yourself.

Pauline KoppelNovember 23, 2013 at 11:20 am

Great article Victoria. Thank you for speaking up for all of us who feel absolutely ashamed and embarrassed by the current government and their short term, stupid self-satisfying legislation that only benefits their bully boy friends that helped them to gain the election.

Ben SNovember 23, 2013 at 11:21 am

Dear Tim Stiles,
While it may seem to you and your ilk that this country is run purely by Labor vesus Liberal, it indeed is not. I too feel ashamed that any party involved in Australia’s political system could degenerate into the farce that Labor calls leadership, however that does NOT mean that Liberal is all that is left. It only means people can use it as an excuse to not have to THINK about their choice; to point and say “it’s not my fault, they gave me no choice”.

The truth is, it IS your fault. You and your ilk. You would rather tick a box and not have to think about the future than educate yourself and make an informed choice. you would rather allow all our leaders to perpetuate the politics of personality than stand up and demand something better. There is more at stake here than “good government” and “stable leadership”. For the first time in perhaps the history of our race, we are faced with an adversary that will require everyone’s co-operation to defeat. It’s not war, it’s not famine. It’s ourselves. We have to change our thinking, our behaviour and our priorities, for all time. And we have to do it NOW. While you are whining about stable leadership vs backstabbing mutiny consider this. Our country does not now hor has ever done one term governments. So while people excuse the error of their ways by saying “it’s only three years” they have missed the point that it isn’t- it’s at least six. And if you are wondering about what can be done in six years- think GST, which can not ever be undone now.

In 2007 our conutry put pen to paper and said that they were ready to take the first steps to rectifying the damage that we have inflicted on our earth. And now, it has swapped that for a few dollars off their power bill, and “stable leadership”. To the people that did so, I urge you to do your homework, and rectify the grave error that has been made.

DonnaNovember 23, 2013 at 11:22 am

My sentiments exactly… well said… bravo…..

Elaine PhillipsNovember 23, 2013 at 11:22 am

Trouble is most of those who voted for Abbott won’t read the true facts about human induced climate change in the newspapers – especially here in Qld as we only get the Murdoch papers, even the local paper that we get for free is one of their biased productions. Just so depressing. So much good work just gone to waste!

Geoff Of EppingNovember 23, 2013 at 11:26 am

The ultimate cost to you Abbott supporters will be your children, and their children’s children cursing your memory after you have died. They will blame you personally, you will be called the greedy generation, the fools, the deniers. Your actions on September 7 will be listed alongside the worst of the worst excesses of Pol Pot, Hitler, they will be included in history books, taught to what’s left of human society. Your descendants will starve for lack of food, thirst for potable drinking water, and your names will be on their dying breaths for ever. You will be cursed to hell and back, your graves and memorials, desecrated and vandalised.
Selfish, stupid, shortsighted, sycophantic supporters of a man who wears his ignorance like a diadem on his cursed brow. You will be named as his enablers, criminals of the first order.
So as you sit back and count your precious extra few pieces of silver that you think will come your way from demolishing the Carbon Tax, think on the real price your descendants will have to pay so you could have that extra flat screen, smartphone, or whatever gadget has captured your tiny selfish greedy minds.
Victoria….I am impotent with rage.

Rod WhitfieldNovember 23, 2013 at 11:26 am

Stable leadership? Are you out of your mind? If this is stability, I’m moving to Sweden. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyY-xI6zgfk

GlendaNovember 23, 2013 at 11:31 am

Thanks that was amazing Victoria everybody who voted for Tony Abbott should read this but sadly for the majority of people ignorance is bliss.I’m glad I’m not one of them.

Whoa, Molly!November 23, 2013 at 11:36 am

Amen. Well said. You said everything I’ve been thinking in a far better way than I ever could.

MargLNovember 23, 2013 at 11:37 am

Well said Victoria – my sentiments exactly.

Sandra Searle (@SandraSearle)November 23, 2013 at 11:41 am

Have already left my comments on Victoria’s blog site & Facebook & Twitter as I still can’t do this from the ‘share this’ icons here on AIMN.

We need a new motto for climate change: MAINTAIN THE RAGE.

Victoria Rollison you really are just so good a stating what we (well most people) feel about TA & his mob of morons.

DougNovember 23, 2013 at 11:49 am

Hey all ,we lose credibility when our attacks become personal. We are all better than that and should attempt to make civil points with respect for all peoples views. This is neutral , just a hint on how to gain a little respect when making comment.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 10:50 am

Abbott has also introduced a new foreign affairs initiative called Collaborative Regional Asian Pact

Robyn ParkerNovember 23, 2013 at 11:50 am

Tim Stiles, congratulations! Spoken like a true Liberal … all your huffing and puffing was directed at smearing the Labor Party and nothing was said to address the actual issues .. good on you!

Victoria .. a very well written letter with much substance and truth!!! Thank you for caring about our children, our country and our future!

Robyn (Angry mum and grandma)!

john byattNovember 23, 2013 at 11:53 am

hasd the misfortune to have to answer a load of codswhallop in this mornings paper

A cyclone in Victoria any time of the year, let alone July 1927 (Ian Currie Gympie Times Nov 23) just had to be journalistic license to describe what in effect was the downdraft of a winter storm funneled through a valley which lasted about two minutes and caused massive destruction. It is just this sort of misinformation that anti science global warming deniers put out into the public arena to try to confuse and misdirect the debate from the actual scientific consensus, into a political bun fight. It is not rightwing/left wing, it is science and anti science.

Ian, it is not the International Panel on Climate Change, it is the Intergovernmental Panel. Whining about being talked over when we have heard it all before, the rebirth of zombie disinformation, regurgitated at every opportunity. These conspiracy theories which would have to involve every scientific institution on earth, manufactured by the tin foil hat wearing brigade banging the one world government drum of their own hallucinations. Ian, if you actually have some science to make a point, rather than your Gish-gallop of rhetorical nonsense, then please enlighten us.

Matthew HardyNovember 23, 2013 at 10:53 am

An extremely poignant and deserved social flaying. Thankyou for expressing my feelings so exactly.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 11:02 am

“greed and selfishness that made the Labor party look so incompetent” – you mean Rupert, Gina and Abbott using their media to lie?

“perceived incompetence of the Labor party” – Where did the ‘perception’ come from….the 600 pieces of legislation that were passed? The AAA credit rating? Or are we back to Rupert, Gina and Annott’s lies?

“the country might prefer stable leadership” – as opposed to a madman who has humiliated us Sri Lanka, and Poland?

Tim Stiles, rather than being angry WITH you, I am angry on your behalf…..I hate getting lied to and I would assume you do too. Though I agree with Victoria in that, with very little research on your part, you could have realised how dangerous this lying pack of incompetents really are and saved this country from being sent backwards on every front.

Tony HogarthNovember 23, 2013 at 11:04 am

Victoria your letter says all I am feeling at this time ! Except for my enormous apprehension that the Liberal party haven given the opposition so many loaded guns to shoot them with ,and they haven’t ! does this mean that anyone who gets in after the libs is going to post up sign saying “Don’t worry rorting as usual !” I get the impression that all the rats are in the same hole and the only way to fix this country is to go back to square one and re write the rule book ! IE “First past the post and no coalitions b4 the results are out !”P.S Tim Absolute B>S and Kaye I do hope you are being sarcastic !!

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 11:06 am

(note to self…proof read before hitting enter) Add Indonesia to embarrassment list, as well as China

“Chinese officials have expressed their surprise and disappointment that Australia is seeking to repeal its carbon price, just as the world’s second largest economy and biggest polluter prepares to launch new carbon trading schemes of its own, and seek linkages with international markets.

Just hours after Australia’s Environment Minister Greg Hunt was hailing the passage of the carbon repeal legislation through the lower house in Canberra as a “victory for the people”, his somewhat more powerful and longer sighted Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, was hosting a presentation at the Chinese pavilion at the climate talks in Warsaw, hailing the start of pilot carbon trading schemes in Shanghai and Beijing next week.”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/china-surprised-and-disappointed-by-australias-carbon-repeal-11338

DianeNovember 23, 2013 at 12:24 pm

Well said both Victoria and Ben S above. It makes me very sad, seeing a country that was leading the pack, being reduced to what it has been since Sept 7th: An American radio programme I listened to said “Australia has elected its own George Bush”…and I don’t think that was meant as a compliment.

Pam RawlingsNovember 23, 2013 at 11:28 am

Great letter Victoria, there is one problem with it though, Abbott voters would lose concerntration with it in the first paragraph and give up reading it. It is way too much for them to absorb.

MargLNovember 23, 2013 at 12:36 pm

Geoff of Epping – great post, you have put it so well. I hope these utter goons soon realise how pathetic and stupid they have been in putting such an amoral, nasty specimen in power.

RobNovember 23, 2013 at 12:37 pm

We removed lead from car exhausts. Remember the dangerous invisible substance that was damaging our brains and poisoning our cities? Evidence showed we had to act or suffer.

Now what we have done to cars we need to do to power stations and industries. It’s not hard. We have done it before.

A very WORST CASE scenario choice is between (A) take action and face a possible economic depression or (B) don’t take action and face global cataclysmic events, mass deaths AND global depression. That is the choice, and so far there is no evidence that taking action makes even a measurable downward impression on the economy. It is a complete no brainer.

But the Right have hijacked the argument into a discussion about utility bills. Tony Abbott demonstrated in Parliament he was unable to comprehend an electricity bill. Stop the inanity.

PM Slogan Bogan has rallied the scared, the selfish and the stupid around a platform of paralysis. They deserve nothing but our most precipitous contempt.

Marcus TiverNovember 23, 2013 at 11:44 am

Good on you Victoria, that is a terrific letter. I could never articulate my thoughts into writing as well as you did with your letter, but I agree with you totally. Protesting, divesting and kicking Abbott and his gang out at the next election, is the way forward.

FelicityNovember 23, 2013 at 12:56 pm

The missing point here is that most people didn’t vote for Abbott, they voted against Rudd/Gillard. We no longer look at what is going to be done, but only what has been done and if we don’t like it we change the Govt.

Mary-AnnNovember 23, 2013 at 11:57 am

Thanks Victoria, what more can I say, you have said it all!

JoNovember 23, 2013 at 1:04 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong but there were more than 2 options on my lower house voting form – in fact there were 8 yes 8 NOT 2. The day we have a USA style voting system where I have to pick 1 of 2 candidates I think is the lesser of the two evils is the day I’ll subscribe to having to choose between Labour and the Liberals. I agree with your sentiments Victoria. I think the whole country needs a re-education on how voting works. Pick the person/party that best represents your interests in the long term and not the muppet you think is the lesser of two evils.

hilderomboutNovember 23, 2013 at 1:07 pm

Thank you Victoria. I have already responded on your blog but i always like to read the comments on this one as well. You have expressed my thoughts and feelings perfectly.

Le blogeur gaiNovember 23, 2013 at 1:21 pm

Wow. Nailed it!

And so say ALL OF US!

John Dayley.November 23, 2013 at 1:30 pm

A few points left out of this piece:
– Australia’s impact on climate change as a global phenomenon is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. We could stop every CO2 emission from our country and the world will still warm, and the difference in warming would be statistically insignificant from if we did not change our carbon emissions at all. So, in effect, it’s a scheme that won’t even reduce or stop global warming, but its a scheme that makes us look like we’re doing “the right thing” on a world stage. Which brings me to my next point.
– Australia has little to no sway on a world stage. We may be well known in many Western countries, but as far as significance goes, we have nothing. We struggle to get a “non-permanent seat” on the UN security council – that’s like the Coach’s Award, or a participation award for the UN. “Thanks for coming”.
A third point, different to the one above, is that this article is assuming that the Liberal’s direct action plan is not going to reach it’s targets, or anywhere close to it, in any way, shape or form. Is there any direct, hard evidence on that? Have you got any reasons why you think that’s the case, other than “I hate Tony Abbott and I think he’s a climate change denier so therefore none of his policies will work”?
In summary, it’s not going to make any difference whatsoever on the climate whether we have a carbon tax/ETS/Direct Action Plan or not. The world is warming, and unless the major polluters somehow stop and all move to nuclear/wind power/solar, we’re stuffed, and there is nothing we, in Australia, can do about it. The best thing Australia can do is invest money into dealing with climate change, to minimise the impact it is going to have on our country in the future.

TipperNovember 23, 2013 at 1:46 pm

I’ll put my hand up and say I voted for Abbott, if you want to simplistically put it that way. I prefer to think of it as voting for a complete package of party structure, policy, ability, trust, honesty, accountability, openness, credibility and performance. I’m aware of climate change, that it’s a natural cycle that can be influenced by our actions. I want to reduce pollution, ideally completely cut it. I want to develop valid renewable energy sources such as solar, thermal and hydro. I want to leave a better place for my children than was created for me. I have many beliefs and goals I suspect you would privately approve of, even admire. I believe there are many ways to achieve these goals, all of which have differing long and short term consequences in all aspects of our lives. What I don’t want is to be dictated to by people who are so convinced of their beliefs they are willing to persecute those who think differently. I am well educated, rational of thought, compassionate by nature, and research before I adopt a position. The only example I can think of in literature that compares to your position and attitude is that of the pigs in Animal Farm, more equal to the point of believing they are exempt from the rules and standards that apply to everyone else. Just as an assylum seeker enjoys no freedom at the bottom of the ocean, people with no job, struggling to clothe, feed and provide shelter for their families will have little time for impractical idealism that does nothing to better their lives in the present. If you want to convert ( it seems to be a religion to you) people to your way of thinking you’ll have more success making them feel secure first. Provide them with a job, give them the ability to actually see a future that is relevant to them instead of declaring them all brain dead, unthinking, self serving heretics. Meanwhile enjoy your convictions, may they allow you to continue feeling superior to those who think differently. May your anger and rage, assuming their genuine, continue to fuel your zeal, and provide other like minded people with a forum to vent their frustrations. I look forward to you or your moderator publishing this comment unedited. Who knows, someone else may think the way I do.

cousincatNovember 23, 2013 at 1:47 pm

Thanks Victoria, I don’t just “like” this post, I LOVE it!!! Btw, just wanted to mention that I feel incredibly angry/desperately sad that we’re also dooming non-human beings thanx to our greed, stupidity & rapaciousness – unfortunately, they tend to be overlooked in many discussions about the impacts of AGW. Considering what we’re knowingly doing to this planet, I find it farcical that humans are considered the most intelligent species.

TimaeNovember 23, 2013 at 1:49 pm

A well written letter. My parents are Liberal voters, which has kind of bothered me since about two months before the elections. They understand climate change: I have discussed with them at great length about its effects and we know it’s a piece of shit. They also aren’t keen on Abbott himself, and I know for a fact that they thing the Liberals need a new leader, as do I because Abbott is a giant heap of poop. But they’re ignorant. I told them about the Great Barrier Reef thing, they demanded sources. I explained that the people I’d originally gotten the info from (and others) had cited their sources perfectly: all official looking sites. Yet they don’t believe he could do anything so radical. I vowed a couple of months ago to not vote for either major party because of Abbott. I’m not a fan of Labor either, really, I find the smaller parties have better policies. I will however make sure to make my parents aware of this.
It’s a sad world we live in, where the teenagers are picking up on the political injustices of the country before their parents.

cousincatNovember 23, 2013 at 1:57 pm

PM Slogan Bogan – love it, Rob!

MickeyJNovember 23, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Get over yourself!

LisaNovember 23, 2013 at 2:01 pm

you seem to forget the Carbon “Tax” has nothing to do with electricity bills rising, it’s to do wit privatising our essential amenities…it is now a business withe shareholders and the like which in my mind are all set up to hello MAKE MONEY!! SO don’t put carbon tax into any context with rising bills the only rising bill goes to Gina and Clive and the rest!! Our taxes are meant to pay for the upkeep of our essential services which have been sold offf so you should be asking yourselves where all the hell that etxra money has gone!!!!!

OzFenricNovember 23, 2013 at 2:05 pm

@Pam Rawlings – “…Abbott voters would lose concentration with it in the first paragraph and give up reading…” Actually, I think you do [some of] the Australian electorate a disservice. It never really struck me before now how much of an impact the Murdoch monopoly has. Perhaps for some of these people, they really *don’t* know any better. They truly believe what has been shovelled into them. Here in Melbourne, where I compulsively read newspapers from Fairfax and online news from the ABC, I can’t imagine a world where the only sources of news I had access to were Murdoch rags. God forbid, even I might be forced to start to believe some of that crap.

It would be interesting to see the breakdowns of 2PP by State, and compare to the availability of non-Murdoch news media…

LDNovember 23, 2013 at 1:07 pm

And repealing the mining tax is next…

Stuart DeanNovember 23, 2013 at 2:18 pm

John Dayley.
Our emissions may be comparitively low in relation to other countries, however you neglect to acknowledge the fact that we are probably the world’s largest exporter of coal and will be even larger when the megamines and export facilities open up. We EXPORT the pollution.
Can you not see how much BIGCOAL has to gain by manipulating our thinking? By brainwashing the weak of mind voters, the non-thinkers? Have they not employed persons like Bolt to tell the people there is nothing to worry about, there’s no such a thing?
If Victoria’s letter has upset you, good. It might make you and others think. – The Truth hurts.

Lee J.November 23, 2013 at 2:40 pm

Yes, yes, YES! I’ve often said that the left just don’t get angry enough – the average idiot views the faux outrage of the right as ‘sincerity’; that if they’re so angry, there must be a good reason for it. The left are so calm and composed by comparison that this looks to the average idiot as if we’re the smug and comfortable ones, just like the right says we are. The reality is, this is just because we are more calm, considered and composed people. But we need to fight fire with fire, and we have a LOT to be angry about!

And I really can’t stand the selfish a-holes like John Dayley who says Australia doesn’t have to do anything because our contribution to global warming is so small. That’s like saying I can go out and murder a few people, because there’s so many people in the world that it will make hardly any difference at all. It also ignores the fact that we are the world’s biggest per capita emitters, and the damage it does to our international reputation – something the seemingly always xenophobic conservatives always seem to ignore.

OzFenricNovember 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm

@Kaye,

Thanks. I was not aware that the Leader group of locals was in the Murdoch stable! (Not that I’d ever read them, but…)

But is there any document available which lists the availability – or otherwise – of alternative voices? In VIC and NSW, for instance, there are Fairfax dailies. In QLD, not so? WA and NT? It would be naive to assume a direct correlation but I would suspect at least some impact on the TPP for a particular demographic. (Obviously, anyone reading and commenting here has no such excuse! 🙂

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 1:57 pm

John Dayley,

Re your first point. Australia is the highest per capita emitter in the world. Ever hear of personal responsibility? In assessing our emissions you have ignored our exports. Hunt has just approved the largest coal mine in Australia in the Galilee Basin. Does the fact that it will be burnt in India or China make our global contribution less?

Point 2. A common excuse is to say I am not important enough to make a difference. I am not strong enough to advocate for change. What crap! The whole world has been watching our stance on climate change. The environment Minister from China spoke only today about his surprise and disappointment that his Australian counterpart was not at the Warsaw talks to hear the speech he was giving about China’s commitment and action to reduce emissions.

Point 3. “The take-home message is simple. The Coalition’s plan is based on incomplete science, dubious economics and breath-taking political expediency. It will be hugely expensive. It won’t cut carbon emissions. It won’t even lead to lower taxes. And it will still introduce a shadow price for carbon.”

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

“Mark Butler says Direct Action will cost at least $4 billion more than the Coalition reckon, and has no chance of meeting its target. The report he cites as evidence is the latest in a long line of models showing the Coalition’s figures don’t add up.”

“Ultimately, a quick analysis demonstrates the plan is very unlikely to provide the returns promised by the Coalition and is most likely to increase in cost beyond what has been promised by the Coalition. This is especially true if the Coalition eventually plans to scale up to meet future reduction targets or if it becomes necessary to scale up, simply due to returns failing to meet current targets.”

http://theconversation.com/will-the-oppositions-direct-action-plan-work-12309

NOW, could you point me to ONE study that shows it WILL work?

Modern Day YouthNovember 23, 2013 at 2:58 pm

Bloody tree hugger I bet you’re one of those vegans that complain about people eating meat also probably an avid feminist who slanders anything males do.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 2:10 pm

I am sure some decent people voted for the Coalition, but they voted on false pretences. They were lied to and were either too busy, too trusting, or to apathetic to look into the lies.

But surely, when a government is prepared to spend and do “whatever it takes” to stop people from seeking asylum, whilst at the same time undoing all action on climate change and research into renewable energy and capping funding for the next 4 years at 3 billion (less than they will spend annually on rolled gold PPL), anyone with any sort of conscience must be saying hang on….have we got our priorities right here?

Bri-Oni MgueueneNovember 23, 2013 at 2:21 pm

THank you for saying what I have been trying to tell my neighbours for a long while. It is OUR responsibilty who we vote in. LISTEN to WHAT the politcians are really saying, RESEARCH what they are really saying, not just hear the slogans and see the theatrics (ditch the witch etc) DECIDE if they are genuinally FOR something because they understand it or are AGAINST it because it is expedient and will get them elected. The PM was FOR carbon pricing, then turned tail because it was politically prudent to pander to the mining magnats and so played to the fears of the gullible populance with the aid of the self-serving interests.

Keep it up Victoria. I am. And we will win. We have too.

Fed upNovember 23, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Tim Stiles, what has your comment got yo do with the fact that carbon emissions are a pollutant that is bringing about man made climate change, to the detrimental of the planet.

It is causing damage, that cannot be reversed for hundreds of years.

Fed upNovember 23, 2013 at 3:28 pm

What has Labor’s so called excesses got to do with the fact that we cannot afford to continue to use fossil fuels to generate power.

Would not matter if they were all found to be axe murderers, they are not responsible or the cause of Abbott’s shocking behaviour and lack of ability as PM.

Abbott is doing all that himself.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 2:29 pm

@ Ozfenric

Here is the info on 2PP by state and Murdoch holdings.

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseTppByState-17496.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corporation#Metropolitan_newspapers.2C_magazines_and_news_distribution_channels

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm

If you are really interested in marrying up all the info good luck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Australia

AbbieNovember 23, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Thank you Victoria for giving me permission to openly declare my anger at the Abbott supporters.

I have, at times felt that I was alone out here, but for articles in AIMN and other independent outlets, like your letter has given me hope and sustains me.

In relation to those who deny Climate Change, I wonder if they understand the difference between ‘science’ and ‘belief’. Some commentators on this piece seem to have mixed it all up. They need to go and study the science before declaring their hand, methinks.

I tried to talk to a friend’s husband about why he was voting for Abbott. I said; “You know you can only vote for Abbott if you live in his electorate.” He couldn’t understand what I was saying. Either way he was just voting for our rusted on National Party nobody anyway. Just such a huge disappointment when I asked why. He said; “Labor has got Australia into such debt we will never be able to pay it off. Labor has wasted all that money through those hairbrained schemes and look at us now”.
I said; “Yes our little country school where I live has several new buildings instead of ‘portables’. People out my way in my village are putting up solar panels on their houses and installing all manner of insulation and water tanks…and really most Governments who are doing their job have ‘debt’.”

I have not spoken to him since the election, but am curious to hear what he thinks of the half trillion dollar debt Hockey wants to put upon Australia now.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 3:16 pm

lololol MDY what a misnomer! Troll alert 😉

Christel LongNovember 23, 2013 at 3:18 pm

James C I am taking a leaf out of Victoria’s book – you are a selfish moron

Paul LeopardiNovember 23, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Dear Victoria,
Thanks for your article. Anger can be a good motivator, but what counts is outcomes. To change the outcome, we (as in everyone that wants the outcome to change) need to do two things:

1. Find ways to *listen* to the people who did not vote for Labor at the last election, to find ways to have a genuine dialog with them, to come to a common understanding, that will change the way they vote at the net election. As I see it, if we want meaningful wide scale action in the medium term, the way to achieve this is to vote in a Labor government at the next election. We need to enure that the vote of all eligible voters puts in a government that can and will do the right thing by all of us. To do this, we really do need to learn to listen to, and not just blame, the people who did not vote for Labor in the House of Representatives at the last election. They may have had valid, reasons, bu they may also be open to accepting responsibility (not blame) for the outcome of their choice.

2. Unless the Coalition make a stratgeic blunder and bring on a double dissolution election early in its term, we will need to wait until 2006 to change the federal government. We need to take this time to find other ways of changing the outcome, whether by changes in local and state government, or by changes in our patterns of investment, or by finding some way of bringing pressure to bear on ur current decision makers, or by (shudder – maybe it is possible!) finding a convincing argument that will change their minds.

3. Finally, we should not just be a self-congratulatory echo chamber. We claim to live in reality and be open to evidence. We need to test this, by seeing how our messages change both knowledge and opinion. One way to do this is to conduct “fact and opinion” polls. This sort of poll asks people what they know about well-known, uncontroversial and uncontested facts, and also asks their opinion on policy positions and voting intentions. We may just find out that the average Labor voter is *more* ignorant than the average Coalition voter, not less. I doubt this, but as peope who claim to live in reality, I think we need to try this, and deserve to know the outcome, whatever it may be.

Möbius EckoNovember 23, 2013 at 4:24 pm

Labor has run us to the brink of bankruptcy yet again…

Joe Humphries I wish you and the others who sprout this false mantra would please do a cursory study of basic economics before stating that nonsense.

And if you believe it is the case then you must be incensed at Hockey taking us over the brink by your reckoning.

linfinitNovember 23, 2013 at 4:24 pm

Ok, I mean *three* things. Sorry, I’ve been having problems with my Internet connection.

linfinitNovember 23, 2013 at 4:26 pm

And 2016, not 2006.

linfinitNovember 23, 2013 at 4:30 pm

And I mean the *next* election, no the “net” election. Oh, for a way to edit my comment …

KeithNovember 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm

Thanks Victoria a very passionate letter. I went to one of the rallies, the only politician who did not show up was a Liberal Senator, he had been invited. The
crowd definitely showed their antagonism.

helenmargNovember 23, 2013 at 4:41 pm

amazing article Victoria. Thank you again.

MingmanNovember 23, 2013 at 4:47 pm

yeah tony abbott is contributing to killing your offspring… what about your incompetent labor party and it’s insulation scheme which killed, injured and endangered the lives of innocent people in australia. its moves like that which render the labor party a running joke in this country

AbbieNovember 23, 2013 at 4:55 pm

Mingman; Did you know it was four lives lost and two were found to be because of metal insulation material ( not covered under the then Govt rebate polity) and the other two most likely because of the BOSSES of the companies not following safety precautions. AND that before the scheme most people were doing their own installing and there were around 25 people dying because of it????(Glad for anyone to check the stats and correct me.)

AndrewNovember 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm

Dearest Victoria,

Get out of your suburb and visit China then talk to me about climate change. Australia is very insignificant in the BIG picture you call “my world”. Our output of CO2 is 1.34% of the worlds total output!! Get a grip & do a little bit of research before attempting to play some pathetic Labor/Greens diatribe.

Sincerely,
Liberal voter

NicoleNovember 23, 2013 at 5:01 pm

Dear Victoria,

I applaud you for speaking what is on your mind. Many more of us should do that.

Unfortunately, all your letter did for me was made me see red. You state “This is you choosing to play Russian roulette with the lives of my unborn children”. Regardless of who people vote for, no one is responsible for your unborn children. What about my unborn children? My sister’s unborn children? By voting for someone other than Tony Abbott, did you play Russian Roulette with their lives? It does not matter who people voted for. What matters is that people formed their own opinions and voted for the party that they believed would deliver what matters to them. That’s called democracy. You know… that thing we have in Australia. The way you speak shows you’d make a great politician because you’re brilliant at attacking others. You’d fit right in to any of the major parties.

All I can see from your letter is that you are attacking people who do not believe the same as you. To quote your last paragraph “It’s time to get angry”: I am angry. I am angry with YOU. How dare you assume that people who do not vote the same as you are comfortable with the status quo. I don’t play Candy Crush on an iPhone. I don’t even own one! I do care that people are dying in countries I’ve never visited and donate a significant amount of money to help those in need. I am not selfish, greedy or rich. I have a family and I work hard to provide for my family with the small wage I earn. I live in a modest house and do what I can to ensure I minimise wastage and environmental damage. Mind you, I consider myself rich because of the love I receive from my family and friends. The amount a person earns doesn’t necessarily make them rich.

I think its time for you “to pop back in to your comfortable little bubble” and enjoy being in there by yourself.

Nicole

KeithNovember 23, 2013 at 5:01 pm

Something that did do great damage to Labor was the leadership issue, and on that basis I think it was a considered vote to go with the Abbott gang. Though anybody who follows politics closely would have had an internal tussle in how they were going to vote. For something like six months it was my intention to vote informal, in the end I did vote, and I’m sorry my Labor choice was not elected. I felt Labor was not much different to the Abbott gang in relation to asylum seekers.

But, climate change is a huge issue and in the end will create more expense, more deaths and generally make life circumstances much more difficult. Climate change has already caused many deaths.
The Abbott gangs solution of direct action is a sham.

Joe HumphriesNovember 23, 2013 at 4:03 pm

Victoria Rollison, I don’t know you, I have never met you so what gives you the right to insult and offend me because of who or what I voted for? The last I heard this was a free and democratic country. I voted for the lesser of two evils. Labor has run us to the brink of bankruptcy yet again and if you stop with your vicious tirade and think about it, there is no way we could be any worse off under this Government. For the record I believe that climate change is a fact. I believe we as a country need to do something about it but I sure as hell am NOT responsible for the actions of the current government!

Ozgood Z'BeardNovember 23, 2013 at 5:10 pm

What a load of absolute crap. Of course the climate is changing, it always has and it always will. There is a possibility that humans are accelerating climate change, if they are it is probably negligible. Humans cannot stop climate change, it will happen, it has to happen. The best things humans could do is work out how they can adapt to climate change, because if they don’t do that, they are doomed, and will become extinct like many other species have become extinct. It will happen anyway. In the future the world will be different and there will be no more humans, perhaps something else will evolve to be as intelligent as humans, perhaps not, it really doesn’t matter. Taxing me now will not make one iota of difference to your children or your grandchildren, or any future generation that may even remember you for any reason. Show me where any climate taxes to date can be shown to have made a difference, you can’t, because they haven’t. I voted Liberal, (not specifically for Tony Abbott, he was not in my electorate), because I was sick of the lies, the backbiting and the attempts to use gender as a scoring point, that was the basis of the Labor government.

trevor vivianNovember 23, 2013 at 4:13 pm

well said, well said this letter sums it up quite well. Greed, stupidity, an unerring desire by the 30 something % that voted for Abbott, along with labour voters who just dont get it, dont want to get and refuse any and all attempts to enlighten them to the folly of their voting in Abbott, Tweddledum and Tweedle dee I hear you say. Well how dumb do you have to be to not discern the differences between the historic voice of Capital and the historic Voice of Labour, my labour-your labour, as in work, wages,salaries,etc But i digress. Climate change is a name given to the accumulated effects of the human Race(end the race or end the race- who will if you won’t)that is negatively affecting the one Bioshpere that allows Human life to flourish. Morons and vested interests. Just another day in the white fella paradise of Western Australia. WA (wait always)

JohnNovember 23, 2013 at 5:15 pm

You must have been insane to write such a lettet. The climate change has nothing to do with who you voted for. Labor or Liberal we all know climate change is happening. Yes I did vote liberal and do not like to be called all those nasty things you said to all the other Liberal voters. I

TaylorNovember 23, 2013 at 5:43 pm

Where do I begin.

For starters, there is no point in one country paying the world’s largest carbon tax. Australians paying the world’s most expensive carbon tax is not going suddenly make the world’s air green. A carbon tax isn’t going to get the pollution out of the soil or out of the sea.

Direct Action is a positive way to reduce to carbon emissions. By giving out incentives, the Government is reducing carbon emissions while making things better for corporations. The Government is rewarding positive action. Also, we are planting more trees. Isn’t that great? Isn’t that what you want? A healthy, sustainable environment? Isn’t it great that we can reduce carbon emissions AND electricity bills?

We are a democracy. We were offered a choice between supposedly reducing carbon emissions through the world’s largest and most expensive toxic carbon tax while increasing electricity prices, gas prices and water prices and the other choice of reducing carbon emissions through positive action, which benefits corporations and businesses, sets an example for the rest of the world, and reduces the toxic tax’s stranglehold on bills. The people of Australia voted for the second option. The people of Australia voted to reject socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

The only people who would want a carbon tax are those who want to see a stealth socialist system put in place under the disguise of environmentalism.

My advice to you all if to vote Liberal, vote for Tony Abbott and tackle climate change head on, instead of trying to use climate change as an excuse to push a socialist agenda.

lawrencewinderNovember 23, 2013 at 5:49 pm

What a good letter.
The only surprise is that more trolls haven’t crawled out of the cesspit.
Is that perhaps the more conscious of them (obviously not MDY) realise that this is shaping as the most venally incompetent government this country has had?

Billy moirNovember 23, 2013 at 5:51 pm

Utter rubbish Victoria labor and the greens made it obvious that a vote for the rabbott was a vote against the carbon tax. The fact that they were unable to explain the what much less the why meant that people like John(s)were uninformed and rejected gillard/labor/the lemon on the sayso of the media and an amoral man devoid of beliefs suitable for modern Australia. Your bitter words should be directed to the green and labor hierarchy who left their members on their own to develop an answer to counter the lies and slogans of the Jesuit boys. The rabbott cannot be elected without the votes of workers and women both of whom will lose over the next three years. Unfortunately, they will believe the rabbott when he tells them his hard decisions were the result of labor’s mismanagement and debt and they must to take the punches on the chin for the good of Australia and they will believe the hype and vote him in again and again. He will be our greatest liar ahead of Menzies and Howard.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Paul Leopardi,

I agree with the sentiments you express but your goals are unachievable.

Firstly, I and many others, have made the non-confrontational invitation on several forms for Coalition voters to explain how this government will benefit me, the country, and the world. I have been greeted by deafening silence. The only things I have heard have been about the Labor Party, and then emotive phrases like we have adults in charge now….never a substantive point about the Coalition’s performance so far or policy for the future. I would be happy to listen, if there was anything to listen to other than bad guvmint abuse.

Secondly, judging by our first few weeks, the damage that will be done in the next three years can’t just get a green light. We have to fight tooth and nail to minimise it.

And as far as polls are concerned, I think they have done more than enough damage and I am heartily sick of them. The methodology is dubious, the reporting selective, the target groups unrepresentative, the results easily manipulated.

Can’t we just listen to the experts rather than poll a few people and ask them leading questions?

Tony Abbott has created a Commission of Audit that has a few months to review every aspect of government expenditure and report back with recommendations early next year – a Hurculean task that has been given to 5 people who represent big business, oh and Amanda Vanstone. The budget for this Commission is 1 million dollars. …yes ONE million dollars. Considering that the 5 commissioners are paid $1500/day each, that doesn’t leave enough for photocopying and coffee.

While setting aside over 11 billion for roads, and scrapping all funding for public transport, Tony removes environmental protections, caps funding on climate change action, and directs unlimited resources towards stopping people from seeking asylum and approves huge coal mining projects.

I would be happy to listen to an Abbott voter on any of the points I have raised.

Dan RowdenNovember 23, 2013 at 6:07 pm

Taylor,

I fart in your general direction.

Fed upNovember 23, 2013 at 6:10 pm

Jed WalkerNovember 23, 2013 at 6:19 pm

A thought…

Let’s pretend, for a few minutes that ‘climate change’ is a hoax – just pretend. We’ll pretend that some very nasty, very selfish, and very powerful people have got together and crafted this very simple, yet very elaborate story designed to extort money from billions of people.

You can even put a face to them — picture the face of someone you think is a bit of a shyster or is bit a sinister. I’ll choose Mr Burns from the Simpsons — I can imagine him doing something like this. And the governments and scientists are people like Mr Burns’ unwavering devotee “Smithers”. Now Smithers often knows that Mr Burns is unethical or even wrong, but, you know, Mr Burns is ‘the boss’ and Smithers does as he is told. After all, Smithers knows that Mr Burns could destroy him if he ever stepped out of line.

Ok, the scene is set…

Now, let’s pretend that some of the reasons that you suspect ‘climate change’ is a hoax are….

1. Trees absorb/soak up carbon. Why haven’t any governments stopped deforestation? Aren’t we in dire straits? Isn’t this a “NOW” problem?

2. Why haven’t the world’s governments had an “OMG moment” and decided that they should rally together to ‘save the planet’ – they all seem very, very casual given the impeding doom, don’t you think?

3. How is it, that the *only* immediate solution to the world’s ‘climate change problem’ is that the working middle-class cough up and pay more tax?

4. Why is everyone still driving petrol powered cars? drinking from plastic bottles? using refrigerators? sitting on their lounges watching flat screen TV, made from, and dependant upon petrochemicals. And, consuming more and more products that they can ever use.

People are still spewing out carbon by the truckload, every single second of the day – we are still the problem. Actions speak louder than words – shouldn’t everyone who believes that the climate is changing, actually be doing something about it ? Changing their lifestyles? Practicing what they preach? Doing their little bit?

Smell a rat? If these people *really* believe, why aren’t they behaving like they believe? Have they done anything to show that they are taking action, or, is it all just talk?

Can you find anyone who has changed their lifestyle in ANY way whatsoever?

5. The evening news readers are not ‘climate change experts’.

6. People are formulating their opinions based on 15 second news grabs and watching a current affairs program.

7. People are not exploring and critiquing their own point of view? They refuse to watch or listen to people who disagree with them – they call them fools or misinformed or lunatics or unscientific.

The people, including global meteorologists, who do not believe the climate change story gain no advantage by disagreeing. Could it be that they are so dumb that they want to die, along with their families and friends? Or, is it that have they researched for themselves and perhaps seen something, or understand something that others do not because ‘the others’ have not taken the time to look?

Have the climate change believers even considered the opposite point of view to that which they have. Have they heard even one opposing point of view? Have they investigated 1 single article or video that disagrees with the popular view about climate change to gain some perspective?

8. Every planet in our solar system goes through cycles of becoming hotter and colder. They have done so for a few billion years (if you believe the scientists). Couldn’t we be going through one of those warmer times?

9. Whatever happened to the holes in the ozone layer that were going to kill us all?

10. Maybe the holes in the ozone layer are causing climate change?

11. 80% + of carbon emissions are generated through air travel, you know, aeroplanes… Get them and the air travellers to pay for ‘climate change’!

12. Governments screw up…. for example, they were firm supporters of tobacco smoking – they now concede that this was an error. Still, how many years did governments, scientists, and research papers actively promote the ‘fact’ that cigarette smoking was perfectly safe, and, it was actually good for us?

You may recall the TV ads that proudly proclaimed that 9 out of 10 Medical Doctors chose to smoke the “Camel” brand of cigarette. Go take a look; you can find it in Youtube!

Does everyone believe that governments, scientists, and researchers have our best interests at heart?
The “cigarettes are good for you” error made them billions and billions of dollars in taxes over several decades.

Back then, there were a minority of people and scientists who exercised their minds and came to the conclusion that smoking *had* to be harmful. It did not make sense that it was good for you. They argued that smoke in the lungs could not be good for you – these people were shouted down by scientific experts, government bodies, and the majority of the community who all held the firm belief that they were 100% correct – tobacco was just fine and dandy. The minority were labelled as morons, irrational, imbeciles, and unscientific.

13. Are there really more tornados, storms, floods, fires and heat waves now, because of climate change? Or is it that we have more access to the information? 20 years ago; what was the likelihood that we would see images, of even hear about a tsunami anywhere in the world?

We now have access to dozens of online videos within hours of an event. If you have more access to the information, of course it appears to be happening more often.

Graphic images of slabs of glaciers peeling away from polar icecaps and crashing into the ocean (usually in slow motion, and with sombre music) appeals to emotionally-vulnerable viewers relaxing at home on their lounges – and – has a much greater impact, and seems even more scary, if you’re watching it on your petrochemical-dependant, 42 inch 3D TV !

14. Why the change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ …. why? If the planet is getting hotter, then yes, it should be called ‘global warming’. Why the flip-flop?

Perhaps….

If the data (i.e., temperature fluctuations) that are supposed to support the opinion / idea / theory of ‘global warming’ don’t match the predictions, and don’t match the story you are telling – what do you do? Abandon your whole idea OR do a ‘re-branding’ exercise. Change the name to match the story – make it more real for the people you are trying to influence.

What if, whoever (Mr. Smithers) is driving the ‘global warming’ idea, created their marketing plan decades ago. They knew that the missing link was a convenient scapegoat for the cause of the ‘global warming’, and that if they could find a scapegoat, that they could somehow monetize the story.

What if they could perhaps find 7 billion scapegoats that could generate billions of dollars in income for entrepreneurs, climate change leaders, and governments?

What if they focussed on one single variable, like – human activity – all 7 billion of us.

Blame us all for using the technologies that they created, promoted, and sold to us, then, tell us that we’re destroying the planet by using these technologies? Great idea. Send us on a guilt trip!

From there on in, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel!

Very easy to market! Predicting weather is about as ambiguous as you can get. It changes minute-by-minute, every single day, every single millennia, and has so many variables that no-one could ever keep up with all of the data, all over the world.

The bottom line is, that it’s virtually impossible to gather accurate, reliable data from all four corners of the world. But if you control the access to that information, and you control the dissemination of information, to the news, the media and the government you can pretty much say what you like.

But what about the bush fires — they’re much worse because the planet is getting hotter? aren’t they?

Ferocious bush fires are no surprise to Indigenous Aborigines. They have observed and experienced their environment for much longer than we. For example, when the queen wattle trees bloom heavily for two years running, it is a sign that the bush fires are coming. This gives them 18 months to burn off before the big fires.

The Australian Aborigines have a long-range weather forecasting system that uses an 11-12 year cycle and another that uses an 8,000-10,000-year cycle. So comparing this summer, to a summer 10 or 20 years ago is pretty short-sighted. From a scientific point of view, we have nowhere enough data to extrapolate into the past, or the future.

Again, 10 second news stories like “the hottest on record” are carefully crafted bits of information that support the ‘global warming’ (or is that ‘climate change’) opinion or idea.

15. Al Gore’s fortune has gone from $1.7million in the year 2000, and today it’s to over $200 million. Not bad eh? The US government’s Cap and Trade scheme – where companies buy the rights to a certain levels of pollution – will ensure Gore becomes a multi-billionaire, no question. Is he likely to continue to scare people – to tell people that the sky is falling?

So….. What’s the bottom line with climate change (or global warming)?

Taxpayers get to pay more tax. Governments will reap billions of dollars in revenue.

Some individuals (like Mr Burns, and Smithers to a lesser extent) stand to make incomprehensible amounts of money.

The popular view is not necessarily the correct view.

When, and if, MotherNature wants us off her planet, she’ll do it.

“It is easier to fool a man than convince him that he has been fooled”

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 5:28 pm

whilst waiting for a positive reason as to why anyone voted FOR this government, a few more tales to consider.

We have a capital productivity decline. We need innovation, research and development of better ways of doing things. The NBN would be a crucial step towards this.

Malcolm Turnbull promised to have the NBN finished in three years. To construct the 60,000 nodes necessary in this time would require over 57 nodes a day to be erected, 7 days a week for 3 years. As he has just appointed a whole new board and commissioned new reviews, what chance is Turnbull of meeting his promised rollout schedule?

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 5:36 pm

And then we have the “debt”. I would like to hear an Abbott voter’s views on these two comments made by Tony Abbott in light of the Coalition’s decision to make increasing the debt ceiling by 200 billion one of their first acts.

Triple M Radio Interview – May 11, 2012:

I mean, all of us would like to get back into surplus – and I think it’s very important that we do – but the problem is she is increasing the Commonwealth’s debt ceiling to $300 billion and that’s like going to your bank and telling them that you want to increase your credit card limit. You normally only do it if you’re anticipating more spending and that’s one of the problems with the Budget, I think. They’re talking surplus but in fact they’re going out and increasing the debt limit.

2GB Alan Jones Radio Interview – May 11, 2012:

Well, that’s exactly right. The Government should be forced to specifically justify this, not to just sweep it under the carpet and allow it to go through in the appropriations becauseby convention the Opposition doesn’t oppose the appropriations. I think we do need to take a very, very seriously critical look at this question of the debt ceiling. I’m not saying that, having looked at it critically, we would necessarily oppose it, but the Government has to justify this. Our money, our future, is too important to be mortgaged like this without the Government giving us the strongest possible arguments for it, because every dollar that they borrow has got to be repaid.

Paul Raymond ScahillNovember 23, 2013 at 6:48 pm

As good an article as one could pen. Unfortunately you are wasting your time if you think the boxheads that you have directed your angst towarrd;are obviously to thick to comprehend the whole climate change factor. You have failed to state exactly how many dollars they may lose. Bugger the health and well-being of the next generation and those that follow, we must only think of ourselves and the moment in which we live,

HanaNovember 23, 2013 at 5:50 pm

Very well said Victoria. It’s getting interesting when you wrote “because you spent half the month in Bali drinking 50c beers and buying $1 copies of Breaking Bad Season 2”. I like it

Jack WilliamsNovember 23, 2013 at 6:51 pm

Thanks very much Victoria.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 5:53 pm

Taylor, where to begin indeed.

Finland’s tax is US$30/tonne, the Swedes pay US$150/tonne (though most industries pay less), and the Canadian province of British Columbia has steadily increased its price to US$30/tonne. In late 2012, Norway increased its carbon tax to 410 Krone per tonne, or US$72 at the current conversion.

Price per tonne of carbon isn’t the be-all-and-end-all of measuring the tax, but it’s clear that on this metric, Australia’s is not the world’s biggest.

Carbon pricing is intended to change behaviour of both individuals and industry. By making polluters pay, we encourage them to do the R&D necessary to reduce emissions. The money collected by the carbon tax was redistributed as assistance to families, compensation to exposed industries, and grants/loans to sustainable practice and renewable energy developments.

Direct Action will not work. See the linked artcles in my comment from 1:57pm. Why waste taxpayer money?

And the entire world is moving towards what you refer to as a “stealth socialist system”. You completely ignore the economic cost of the natural disasters that are going to increase in frequency and intensity.

You need to research your facts further.

desirousforpointlessbanterNovember 23, 2013 at 7:02 pm

Reblogged this on desirousforpointlessbanter.

Dan RowdenNovember 23, 2013 at 6:03 pm

The problem with this tirade and this approach to “argument” – i.e. preaching – is that Climate Science is not proven at all. It’s the WRONG argument. Anyone who says the science is “proven” is misrepresenting science and has no understanding of what “proof” means in scientific terms. The rhetoric of Victoria’s pieces is exactly why no-one take us seriously. I mean, get a grip and write something that isn’t utterly hysterical.

Action on Climate is a leap of faith, but it’s a leap of faith we must take given the probabilities, because it’s utterly important that we never know if the science, the models, are correct.

That the science is “proven” is technicality bull. Stop touting that. It’s the wrong argument. It leaves us open to refutation.

Grant MacLennanNovember 23, 2013 at 7:07 pm

I’m happy to equate climate change to the Y2K bug.
Y2K bug: deniers would have been happy to do nothing. The experts knew there was a problem with unknown consequences. Responsible people took notice and spent money and time fixing the problem. (I was one of the people who fixed some of those systems.) And it worked.
Climate change: deniers are happy to do nothing. The experts know there is a problem with unknown consequences. Who are we going to listen to this time?

Liberal voterNovember 23, 2013 at 7:11 pm

I had a great laugh at this one. Thanks for providing such a satirical masterpiece! I realise now that I did the right thing by voting Liberal! Cheers!

andrewNovember 23, 2013 at 7:12 pm

while i agree that climate change is happening and action is needed it is unintelligent simplistic thinking to claim this as the sole reason or even the reason many voted for Abbot. most thought labor did a poor economic job and didn’t like the fighting.

Michael TaylorNovember 23, 2013 at 6:13 pm

I don’t think Dan’s in a good mood today. 😉

RossNovember 23, 2013 at 7:24 pm

1. A great read.
2. The trouble with the way publishing is going is this will mostly only be read by people who agree (like me). It is increasingly a problem with the Internet – most people tend to have friends lists of people who agree with them – and even when they don’t – tend to learn that there is usually no winners from arguing over the Internet.
3. Issues around global warming have become polarised and politicised. When that happens changing peoples minds becomes much more difficult. I have a ph.d in statistics and understand how modelling works. It can be a very imprecise tool in the wrong hands – but climate change is no longer just forward projection based on modelling – we have over 50 years experience of actual change and increasing temperatures.
4. The thing that does change peoples minds is extreme weather – the problem is by the time that hits often enough it will be too late.
5. Be careful using extreme weather events like cyclones in climate change arguments. The science suggests that when the events occur they will be more severe – but over time there will be less of them. Denialists will use this as an argument to say climate change is not happening – even though there has already been a rise of over 0.8 degrees (or more depending where you start from), a huge loss of ice in the northern hemisphere which will accelerate and small sea level rises – and where the rate of sea level rising is increasing (which is what happens when ice melts – you start slow then it speeds up dramatically). Even if climate change stopped today there would still be large sea level rises that came over the next thirty years. It could be as soon as the next twenty years that low lying heavy populated areas in Bangla Desh and Thailand create millions of climate refugees. I wonder what our moral responsibility would be to those refugees when we would be one of the major reasons for their refugee status?
6.When we talk about Australian emissions we usually talk about what we emit. Scientists have calculated how much more carbon emissions it would take to go over a critical point. Our coal fields – if totally developed – will contribute over 25% of what it would take. We are not a small player – we are a major player – if you include our coal exports..
7. Im not sure we can rely on just elections to solve our problems anymore. In the United States there are now well organised campaigns to cause divestment in the coal industry and civil disobedience campaigns to stop the Keystone pipeline. We need to get organised here and start pressuring our superannuation companies not to invest in coal (and our banks). Civil disobedience against the new huge coal developments and their support structures which will probably destroy the Great Barrier Reef would be worth doing (and I am not big on civil disobedience but I want the world to be habitable in 200 years).
8. Its hard to be optimistic – but change will come. The problem is not just Abbott and the extreme right-wing faction that controls our current government – the problem is also our big mining companies. An equivalent issue would be smoking where cigarette companies still deny the science. The Liberal party has regularly received donations from big tobacco – and two former ministers and the current speaker are on the record quite recently as denying the harm of cigarettes. When profit is involved the only rule seems to be ‘do anything to maximise profit.’ It feels like the text book definition of psychosis. If the science is correct then the cost could be a liveable environment for our grandchildren.
9. Even if the science is over exaggerrated (which it isnt – the IPCC are actually quite conservative and careful) – the choice between going renewable at some cost versus the catastrophe of staying on the path we are which will ultimately cost more and make the planet unlivable is a no brainer. If you saw a fire 100 m away from your home and some ‘fire dissident’ said ‘fire is good for you’ you’d laugh. Our fire dissidents are the climate denialists. It is tragic and most of us feel powerless but we aren’t about to give up.

Michael TaylorNovember 23, 2013 at 6:35 pm

Ferocious bush fires are no surprise to Indigenous Aborigines.

I tend to sort of disagree there, Jed. Aborigines were experts at ‘fire-stick farming’, ie, controlled burning of scrub land during the cooler months in order to avoid the ‘ferocious’ bush fires.

We could learn from them.

Dan RowdenNovember 23, 2013 at 7:37 pm

Michael,

I don’t think Dan’s in a good mood today.

I’m not tolerant of overwrought garbage and emotional manipulation from any side of politics. Morally brow-beating the opposition just makes us feel good. It’s an ego-wank. The science cannot be “proven” It is not proven. We need to stop lying about that point. It does not have to be. It can’t be; if it is it’s too late. That is the point. Scientists around the world from diverse disciplines accept the probability of the modelling. That is the fact. Stop saying the science is “proven”. It is a counter productive lie.

vdogNovember 23, 2013 at 7:50 pm

“you have no Right to an opinion on climate change.” Amidst the meandering, misdirected,misguided arguments of this thoroughly non-independant piece, this struck me as the most rediculous. People have a right to believe whatever they choose. They can deny gravity if they wish. Only those with totalitarian inclinations declare authority to dictate “right thinking” to rational independant adults. These sort of arguments only confirm that climate change arguments have lost their basis as a careful, considered multi-faceted analysis based on cost-benefit evaluations, and have become something of a religion, to which non-believers are derided, dismisses, and from the moral tone of this article, damned for all eternity.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 7:08 pm

!. Why haven’t any governments stopped deforestation?

Because big business makes profits from it.

2. Why haven’t the world’s governments had an “OMG moment” and decided that they should rally together to ‘save the planet’

Perhaps you don’t know about the climate change talks currently going on in Warsaw that Tony Abbott didn’t bother sending any politicians to.

3. How is it, that the *only* immediate solution to the world’s ‘climate change problem’ is that the working middle-class cough up and pay more tax?

Pricing carbon is one measure, along with the development of renewable energy and sustainable practice and direct action.

4. . Why is everyone ….

Higher electricity prices, forcing people to bring their own bags to supermarkets or pay for new ones, research into biodegradable packaging and recycling, and alternate energy sources for cars. Many people have changed their lifestyles. haven’t YOU?

5&6. The evening news readers are not ‘climate change experts’

Neither are Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones….but 97% of people who ARE climate scientists agree about the evidence.

7. The people, including global meteorologists, who do not believe the climate change story gain no advantage by disagreeing.

Every last one of them is paid by the fossil fuel industry or the Heartland Institute (same thing). You will find they have written a skeptic book and are doing a speaking tour, but the links ALWAYS go back to the FFI.

8. Every planet in our solar system goes through cycles of becoming hotter and colder.

The warming that used to happen over thousands of years has happened over a hundred. The increase is happening so quickly the planet cannot adapt.

9&10. Whatever happened to the holes in the ozone layer that were going to kill us all?

We stopped using CFC’s and it is repairing.

11. 80% + of carbon emissions are generated through air travel

Can I see a link to this info please

12. Governments screw up…. for example, they were firm supporters of tobacco smoking

The tobacco companies buried the info and still dispute it and fight laws to restrict their trade

13. Yes we are having more intense weather events more frequently. You don’t have to worry if you missed it on tv. The meteorological bodies around the world have the data.

14. Why the change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ …. why?

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, ‘global warming’ refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature. ‘Climate change’, again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc.

I would suggest you look up any further queries you may have here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

AdamNovember 23, 2013 at 8:17 pm

Dear Victoria,

It’s a shame you couched your open letter inso many personal insults.

For the record. I voted for Abbott, and I believe in climate change and the need for action. I don’t believe either the Gillard/Greens policy or Direct Action is sufficient. Actually, Rudd with his push for international action had it closest to right IMO. A shame he apparently didn’t believe in what he was doing.

The Gillard policy, in my view, was just going to push emission production offshore, possibly to places that would be even more polluting than Australia.

You don’t have to agree, or even understand. But it would be nice if you could engage in a constructive discussion instead of insults and name calling. Particularly when you don’t have the facts right.

You may be right that Gillard’s tax was the best solution, or you may be wrong. If you are not a climate scientist, I don’t concede your right to hold an opinion on global warming (remember that argument? You used it) yet your whole letter is based on your opinion. Prove me wrong. Discuss in specific and critical terms the ten most significant pieces of research on climate change you have read. But if all you can say is “everyone knows” then how much have you read?

And since you have an opinion on the carbon tax as policy, can I assume you are an economist and therefore entitled to hold that opinion?

Or are you just a sloganeering political bigot, happy to insult those who do not see things as you do.

cynical1November 23, 2013 at 8:19 pm

“I will tell you you’re a moron. A dangerous moron. And this leads me to my reason for writing you this letter. I want you to know that I’m not just pissed off with you”.

Piss off, you delusional harridan.

You can lower your own CO2 emissions.

Hold your breathe for as long as possible….

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 7:19 pm

So judging by the comments here, this is how Tony Abbott won the election

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 7:26 pm

To those who say they did nothing wrong by voting for Tony Abbott, because you did not like Labor electing their own leader, and because you somehow think that a AAA credit rating is given for poor economic management, you voted for someone who thinks climate change is crap and who gives gun boats to human rights abusers and who wants to spend 18 billion on roads and 22 billion on paid parental leave. Sorry guys, you are complicit in what we are now enduring, and in the damage that will happen in the future should this man be allowed to stay in power.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 7:31 pm

Well its the weekend Liberal & National Voters all around our wonderful country of Australia. Get your Champers cracking because this week you have achieved…( read on for the fantastic adventures of a week in politics in Australia under Tony Abbott)

Break out the Champers Liberal & National Voters. Your achievements this week…

Steve at the PubNovember 23, 2013 at 8:39 pm

This letter is indisputable proof that supporting the ALP means one does not have all their marbles.

doctorrob54November 23, 2013 at 8:48 pm

Tell people the truth and they still can’t understand that they stuffed up bad.Victoria you will never educate a
one eyed idiots.
Andrew,our CO2 output is closer to 1,8%,even if it is around what you say it is wrong to accuse China of doing worse.Use what little grey matter you have and do some maths.China is over 25% of world pop.We are
but 0.003%.We have no right to pollute the amount we do,Those that do should pay.
Ozgood Z’Beard,sounds like you have given up already but I assure you most of us haven’t,Lab.or Lib.and we can make a difference simply by changing our behavior.Sure we can adapt,what do you want,for us in the future to live in bubble type houses,you think people will get their oxygen tanks free,hardly.You pay to have your sewerage and rubbish to be taken away so what’s the diff..What is your plan for CC refugees when their islands are under water,implement another Sovereign Border Protection Scheme. FFS you can’t give up on future generations,don’t have the shits with Victoria for being pissed off,women are more protective than men about their little ones,you get that.
Taylor why the F#&!k did you begin at all,your parroting of BS propaganda is why Libs of your ilk are insulted.At times it’s best to shut up and let people think you are stupid then to open your mouth and prove it.97% of the worlds climate scientists state CC is real and happening and are convinced our life style is a major contributing factor.This is not a Commie or Socialist plot to destroy world economies.Toxic abbott and his Direct Action is a load of crap,and he knows it,Toxic abbott DOES NOT believe in climate change,needless to say he will do nothing.To plant the amount of trees to make any difference you’d have to take all the agricultural land being farmed,great idea.And where do you think the money he plans to give major polluters is going to come from,dont think I’ll make it easy,it’s comming from the TAX PAYER,$1200.00
from every pay packet in it’s first year,and the polluters don’t have to prove they have done anything and even if they don’t they don’t have to pay it back.And yes we are a democracy,the Libs. got 45% of the vote
which means they have NO MANDATE whatsoever,all they have is the right to manage this country with due consideration of the Nats.They have no right,or power to alter legislation,unless they take control of the Senate,which with the PUP having the balance of power is never going to happen.
PS.Watch out for the Socialists under your bed,there everywhere.

Dan RowdenNovember 23, 2013 at 9:16 pm

Kaye Lee,

We cannot fib about the science and what it says. That’s the first thing. If we do we provide ammunition for science-savvy deniers to hit us with. The consensus that exists across multiple disciplines based on the probability of the modeling – and we need to understand that this is all about contingent models – is sufficient to argue immediate action. If we treat is as something that people must accept or be ignorant persona non grata – to me that is a boofheaded approach that I’d expect from the conservatives. What the hell has ever been achieved by morally brow-beating people? What happens when you get a person’s back up?

We need to speak to people’s hearts and remind them they have children. We need to ask them, not with offense and moral superiority, if they care. We need to tell them we are afeared and make them afeared. I respectfully submit Victoria has no idea how to do that.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 8:18 pm

“multi-faceted analysis based on cost-benefit evaluations”?

How much to rebuild the Philippines? or New Orleans? How much did the Queensland floods cost? Or the bushfires? What is the health cost that could be attributed to pollution?

I would very much like to see the cost-benefit analysis for Direct Action since billions of taxpayer dollars are going to be used for it. Perhaps you could provide the link vdog?

trolololNovember 23, 2013 at 9:23 pm

you mad?

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 8:27 pm

Adam I am not a climate scientist nor an economist, but I have read countless papers and analyses by people who are. As I have said to so many Abbott voters, please show me anything that supports the science involved with Direct Action or that details its cost. How can you expect me to support something when I cannot find any evidence or justification to do so? Please show me what you have read that convinces you that Direct Action is the way to go as, after extensive searching, I cannot find anything including where the Libs got their info from.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 8:39 pm

And Dan, whilst I understand what you are saying in that ALL predictions are quoted as within a certain probability and error range, the semantics of saying the science is “unproven” opens the door for the deniers. You are of course, technically correct. But you must concede that the probability suggests that if we don’t take urgent action, we are stuffed. How do we get that through?

RaedNovember 23, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Maybe if people realised how much their electricity bill is going to go through the roof by excess use of their air conditioners by the increased temperature they might think again on acting on climate change….

RealistNovember 23, 2013 at 9:48 pm

Glad I voted liberal. Climate change – bahaha.

Glad I will actually be able to provide my kids an education, and a job.

I’ll plant a couple of trees in the backyard if that makes you happy.

EggsNovember 23, 2013 at 10:27 pm

Hmmm, its seems that the people getting their nickers in a twist are feeling a bit guilty. No one likes to be told they are wrong. Putting your trust in people like Rupert M, Alan J and Tony A is the political equivalent of putting your head in the sand. Now its time for a big fat piece of humble pie. Yum yum. Well said Victoria.

BrettNovember 23, 2013 at 10:33 pm

You, Victoria, are seriously deluded.

I mean that. Seriously, deluded!

You think that we who voted for Abbott are not entitled to an opinion, but of course, you are, because your opinion is the correct one isn’t it Victoria?

Seriously, effing deluded!

You better get used to the current situation Victoria, because us Abbott-voters intend for him to be leading the government for at least the next 9 years, by which time even you will have realised how hysterically and ridiculously wrong you were on this issue.

Robert KleissNovember 23, 2013 at 10:33 pm

I paid you the courtesy of reading your letter, I hope you will take the time to read mine.
I drive a tiny little car, Suzuki Jimny, I spent $25000 on my home to reduce my power bill from $1200 per month to $350, when I can afford it I will try tom disconnect from the electricity grid and the water and the sewer. I have chooks,a vege garden and some fruit trees. I don’t use chemicals and I eat as organically as I can afford to. I am doing this because firstly I want to be able to afford to live here when I am old and secondly because I believe that regardless off climate change it is a bad thing to pollute the environment in which we live. I also recognise that I am only able to afford to do these things because I am fortunate to live in a prosperous country. I voted for the conservative side because we are spending faster than we are earning. When we are broke other people from overseas will come here and tell us how to live and what we can do we will not care about our environment anymore only how we will get food and shelter. While we prosper we have choices, we can make our own decisions and control our future and the future of our beautiful country. If it is owned by others who live else where it will be nothing other than a quarry, somewhere to be exploited without care, no rules or national parks will stand in the way of profit. If you want to save the environment then start a new political party that achieves that goal but does it in a way that makes us prosper, promotes the mainstream way of life, encourages changes that will achieve the result you desire but at the same time allows people to live how they want to. You can do it with out destroying industries, banning hunting banning fishing banning four wheel drives, trail bikes, horses in national parks, you can do it without campaigning for gay rights. You will find that if you come to the community with a new way that includes us all that allows us to join you in your crusade without looseing all that makes our lives enjoyable you will be in power and if you keep true to what you promise you will stay there. But I am sorry to tell you that while ever you continue to carry on ranting and raving like you did in that letter you will get nowhere. People just turn off, right you off as a nutter and ignore you. Once this happens you become part of the problem, not the solution, every time you upset someone and turn them off every time you try to force someone to live to your rules you turn people away from the solution toward the cause. The greens will never come to power in this country in their current form with their current policies. By turning away millions of people who would support your cause were it presented from a mainstream conservative position you are I fact the very reason it cannot succeed. The future of your unborn children is in your hands. You cannot change another persons response to you by any other way than by changing your approach to them. Very few people will allow you to push them toward anything but many will follow if you lead well more you are going where they want to go. I wish you well in your crusade

Robert Kleiss
Conservative voter and Log truck driver

TaylorNovember 23, 2013 at 10:41 pm

Kaye, Tony Abbott has been a parliamentarian for nearly twenty years, representing the electorate of Warringah. He studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar with degrees in Economics and Law as well as a masters in Arts (politics and philosophy). I think that Tony, unlike Adam Bandt, Sarah Hanson-Young, Bill Shorten or Julia Gillard, actually knows what he’s talking about considering that those four only have some bachelor of arts degree and have about a decade tops of parliamentary experience.

I, along with a majority of Australians, agree that Tony knows what he’s doing. He’s not an idiot and I would advise you not to underestimate him.

And just because the rest of the world is being infiltrated by stealth socialism masquerading as environmentalism, doesn’t mean Australia has to do the same. What is the rest of the world decided to head towards fascism? Should Australia head in that direction too? Australia can set an example to the rest of the world.

Direct Action greatly benefits businesses. From what we’ve seen over the last six years, it is impossible to look out for the workers and families of Australia without looking after the businesses which employ the workers who look after their families. Put a tax on carbon, companies have to raise the price of electricity, lay off workers, and slash wages. This means electricity bills rise, unemployment rises and household income drops.

DukeNovember 23, 2013 at 10:42 pm

What a joke. Whinging, sorry socialists. I’ve only read the first couple of paragraphs and can predict the rest. Labor gave away the carbon tax money to poor breeders – not an environmentally friendly way to use the money but great for fast food joints and pokey mafia.

AdamNovember 23, 2013 at 10:45 pm

Kay, read my words again. Your reply to me attacked Direct Action. I did not defend Direct Action. I said that I didn’t think either party had a viable policy for climate change.

My logic is…neithe party has a viable climate change policy, therefore my vote was determined by other factors. Mostly by what a circus the Rudd/Gillard government had become.

I note that you claimed to be well read. That’s nice but I am not sure I believe you. If you were well read my argument that a local carbon tax just pushes emissions offshore should be familiar to you, and you would then make the argument you made in your original letter. I am not trying to insult you here. I am observing that your original letter to me seemed more an example of one sided dogma than reasoned argument, and inviting you to consider that possibility.

I guess maybe you have read a lot of stuff, but not a variety of viewpoints.

I also not that I the first paragraph of your reply to Dan you asserted that you always try to back up what you say with sources. If this is so, why did your original letter contain no references or supporting materials? Nor did your reply to me address specific articles, even though I requested them.

It happens I agree with you that climate change is a real and serious issue, but what evidence did you provide for those who don’t? And what evidence for those who, like me, argue that the carbon tax in its current form is bad policy? Why is it good policy? Why is the rate it was set at the right rate, even though it is out of step with other rates around the world? What are the ethics of rich nations setting up an ETS, buying all the carbon production permits, and thereby blocking poorer nations from economic development that might end their poverty? I could go on, but you get the idea I think, and this reply is already too long.

Sorry, but while I admire your passion you haven’t convinced me that your viewpoint is the product of a deep and cohesive consideration of the problem you are addressing.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 9:49 pm

Dan, I would never knowingly “fib” about the science. I hope you realise that I try to always back up what I say with links to my sources.

I understand what you are saying about approach – aggression breeds aggression – but I also understand the frustration that so many of us feel. I have patiently explained and provided references and links until I am blue in the face. Sooner or later you just want to poke them in the eye with a burnt stick.

But I agree that results are the most important thing. I don’t feel morally superior, that is not what drives me to continue to comment and to attend rallies and to write to politicians. But I do feel afraid for my children and am flabbergasted that others don’t feel likewise. I guess I have more time to read up on stuff than many so I try to pass on what I learn, but Abbott has so brainwashed people to think carbon pricing is ruining their lives, that people seem willing to sacrifice the planet for a very questionable small reduction in their electricity bill. How do you discuss this gently? How do you make them care about their children’s future?

TaylorNovember 23, 2013 at 10:55 pm

Exactly. Everything in science is a theory. Evolution is a theory, the big bang is a theory, climate change is a theory. It can be verified perhaps, but never proven. It’s completely unscientific and inappropriate to call a scientific theory a fact.

By the sounds of things, Victoria doesn’t believe that those who don’t believe in the theory of climate change have a right to freedom of speech. Our freedom of speech ends were her feelings begin.

Dan RowdenNovember 23, 2013 at 11:09 pm

Kaye Lee,

I don’t know how to make the point or incite the conversation or change people’s minds. All I know is that we are failing and must rethink our strategy. Yelling at people, which is what Victoria invariably does, is not going to achieve jack shit other than a left-wing love fest. It’s all very comfy, but what does it achieve?

The middle ground is always the place to be in these matters, because that’s where reasons resides. I have no idea why you don’t write for this site. Your comments are always detailed and high quality.

Dan RowdenNovember 23, 2013 at 11:25 pm

Taylor,

Shut the hell up. While you’re shutting up. Google what a scientific “Theory” is. It’s actually the strongest position a scientific model can have. Sigh.

Dan RowdenNovember 23, 2013 at 11:27 pm

Kaye Lee,

You should write as an author. Simple as that.

AdamNovember 23, 2013 at 11:30 pm

Kaye, you are ignoring what I said again.

I understand how the proposed ETS works.

Does it add cost to manufacturing? (Surely the answer must be yes).

If someone is deciding on the basis of price whether to manufacture in Australia or overseas, doesn’t the tax just make it more likely that they will manufacture overseas? Therefore the world gets no benefit and our economy suffers.

And of course you must be able to list several high profile cases if manufacturing going offshore in the past few years. This is not just a result of the carbon tax, but do you concede the carbon tax will push some manufacturing offshore that might otherwise have stayed here.

I note you went to university with Abbott. That was a few years ago now. He might have learned a thing or two. But from what I know of his history, I find the notion that he is a puppet hard to take seriously. Wasn’t he fairly active in student politics? That comes from his detractors, not his supporters, so I assume it’s not a marketing thing.

MothNovember 23, 2013 at 11:30 pm

I wanted to add a couple quotes that I thought were the nail hit on the head, but this whole article is jus that – I gave up some time ago playing the debate game. They are not “climate sceptics” but climate cynics. Nothing can get through when the ideology is so strong that the best available data hits fingers stuffed in ears.

They have no science, they have no debate. End game.

TaylorNovember 23, 2013 at 11:37 pm

You obviously don’t realise people can change. The Tony Abbott I know is a man who I believe has the character that all men should model their lives upon. I myself am doing this, trying to model my character on that of Tony Abbott who I and many other Liberals, consider to have a great moral character.

If you don’t realise that carbon pricing is socialism disguised as environmentalism then I assume you’re deluded into believe that climate changing is a fact. I don’t deny climate change, but I just know it’s not a fact, but rather it is a scientific theory which should not be taken as the repository of all truth. I have nothing wrong with looking after the environment but if socialists are going to use it as an excuse to implement their agenda, then I do have a problem.

Just because households and businesses are receiving compensation that doesn’t mean they are automatically free from the burdens of the carbon tax. This toxic tax, no matter how much compensation is given, is still a toxic tax that is nothing but a leech to families and businesses.

As for our Party’s Direct Action plan, we plan to reward businesses for not polluting and for investing in green energy. This is rewarding positive action rather than punishing businesses with a massive, toxic tax.

The Coalition has a plan and the Coalition will deliver for Australians. We are a democracy and we made a our plans quite clear. The people voted for our plans. If the people wanted a carbon tax they would have voted for the ALP or the Greens. I’m not saying that no one voted for them and that no one wants a carbon tax but majority of Australians voted Liberal/National and therefore for Direct Action. Unlike the ALP we are actually going to keep our commitments.

TaylorNovember 23, 2013 at 11:48 pm

Dan.

I’m well aware what I scientific theory is. It’s something that has enough evidence to be considered plausible. That doesn’t mean it’s correct though.

Tony Abbott, the Coalition or myself have never died that climate change exists. But what I’m saying is that the science behind climate change is not the repository or all truth.

Like I said, I have no problem with looking after the environment. One of the principals our Party believes in is preserving Australia’s natural beauty for future generations. The way to go about that however is through some massive toxic tax which is hitting Aussie families and businesses hard. We stand up for families and businesses and therefore we will stand up against socialism in any form.

Michael TaylorNovember 23, 2013 at 10:49 pm

So let me guess. Someone linked Victoria’s letter on a right-wing Facebook group.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 10:56 pm

Taylor thank you for your summation of Tony Abbott but, as I went to university with him, and on occasions, socialised with him, I know that you are very wrong. You are talking about an image that advertising people have sold you. You are not talking about the real Tony Abbott that I know. Tony is not making any decisions – he is being told what to do. He has described himself as a weathervane, one of the few things he has said that I agree with.

And as for Tony’s new slogan that has been so avidly taken up by those of you seem incapable of your own thought, “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” is a con that has been sold to you and others like you by people who wish to make fortunes built on our misery.

If you know anything about carbon pricing you will realise that it is a revenue neutral tax. Households and exposed businesses received compensation and investment was made into renewable energy and sustainable practice. The GST imposed a FAR greater burden on every person and business in Australia.

And could you explain to me the justification for saying “Direct Action greatly benefits businesses”? In what way????

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 11:05 pm

Adam,

There are many benefits of an emissions trading scheme, also known as a cap-and-trade scheme, because it puts a cap on the level of polluting emissions allowed and companies then trade the permits to pollute if they are below or above the cap. The cap and trade elements are why it is the superior carbon pricing mechanism.

The cap provides certainty of limiting the pollution, the primary policy objective. It also provides certainty of the future framework for investors. Investors seek ‘certainty of rules’ rather than ‘certainty of price’. A cap on carbon pollution in 2020 creates certainty of the future trajectory of prices of permits to pollute, provided that the rules regarding supply of permits over that trajectory period are known. This allows the market to estimate supply and demand of permits and make price forecasts accordingly, just as occurs in other markets.

The trade provides the incentive and ability to keep costs as low as possible. Market participants will discover new and cheaper solutions, and will be encouraged to invest more in new low carbon solutions when carbon emission prices are expected to continue rising.

And as far as my “original letter” not containing links is concerned….I have made many posts on this thread and others. To which comment are you referring. I will happily provide sources for anything I have said if required.

TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 12:06 am

There’s nothing wrong with Tony holding the views that he does. Sure you may not agree with them but that doesn’t mean you should ridicule him. You should at least respect the views that he holds. Their his personal opinions and he has every right to have those opinions and to express them just as you have every right to hold your opinions and express them. I respect your views just as I’m sure you would respect mine. I would defend your right to express your views just as I’m sure you would do the same for me.

More people may have voted Labor that Liberal. But more people voted for the Coalition that they did for Labor.

If Queensland, there is no Liberal Party and there is no National Party but rather there is a Liberal National Party. The same in the Northern Territory were there is the Country Liberal Party. In New South Wales and Victoria the Liberal Party and the National Party run for particular seats without competing. In Western Australia the Liberal Party and the National Party compete and in South Australia and Tasmania there is only a Liberal Party. Together, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Country Liberal Party, and the Liberal National Party form the Coalition. So whilst Labor is one party, the Coalition is an alliance between four parties. Excuse my babbling but allow me to sum: More people voted Labor than they did for the Liberal Party however, more people voted for the Coalition than they did for Labor.

TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 12:09 am

Don’t try and change the subject Kaye Lee.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 11:20 pm

Perhaps you people who think businesses prefer Direct Action should read this article.

“Companies overwhelmingly prefer Labor’s Clean Energy Future Package (85%) to the Coalition’s Direct Action Policy (7%).”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/business-say-they-prefer-carbon-price-over-direct-action-31660

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 11:22 pm

Dan, I thought I WAS writing for this site 🙂 and you can see how well my “detailed, high quality” comments are going. I may as well be saying ya big fat poobah!

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 11:41 pm

Adam, the high Aussie dollar and our wages have far more to do with pushing manufacturing offshore than the carbon tax. If the carbon tax was the issue, why did Electrolux announce they will be closing in 2016 regardless of the fact that the carbon tax is going? Why are the car companies going even thought the carbon tax is being repealed?

Another thing I notice in your comments is that you seem to feel emission reductions in other countries give us no benefit. We don’t have an umbrella over Australia. Emissions must be viewed and addressed on a global level. reductions ANYWHERE help us all.

Robert MillerNovember 24, 2013 at 12:45 am

Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we?

You all familiar with a guy named Hitler? Well, he had the same attitude that most of you carry. He said ‘If you’re not with me, you’re against me.’ Then a guy named Al gore came along a few decades later with the same sentence.

Labor supporters, whilst mostly atheists, finally found their own version of Jesus, and his name was Al Gore.
He came along spewing forth pslams and parables of his own kind; and not unlike the bible, his warnings promised us a desolate future if we did not repent for our sins. Except Al Gores, and henceforth the Labor Atheists version of hell, would be on earth, and not anywhere else.

Ha. Frightening similarities, right?

Mr. Gore is such a sterling human being, isn’t he? I mean, he’s all about humanity and saving the planet, isn’t he? Of course he is.

Except for the part that he’s in the 1% that most of you spend so much time chastising; you know, that whole ‘Anyone earning over $80K deserves to be fleeced because I have neither the ambition or hunger to achieve my goals, so I’ll try and make the ones that do succeed in life, literally pay for my failures in my own life.’

How about the part where he’s all about saving the planet? I love that part the most. Why? Because he lives in a mansion that uses more electricity in one month than the average house hold does in a year. He owns more than over a dozen cars, quite a few of them gas guzzling 4WD’s.

But wait; amidst this fleet of luxury, he owns one Prius. What a guy! What a humanitarian!

He’s all about Climate Change too. Yet the only thing that changed in Al Gores life post his film, was the size of his bank balance, which had it’s own kind of warming after it sky rocketed after his documentary, after which he promptly disappeared for 4 years and lived it up, spending his new found wealth on cars and, well, bigger homes.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, you’re all still really angry and are making less than 80K while your saviour basks in his new found wealth on the back of a science that is NOT adopted universally.

And whilst you bow down and worship and take the word of the former vice president of the most corrupt political system in the world, astoundingly, you call people that voted for Tony Abbott morons:
Pot, meet Kettle.

And while we’re on Climate Change…I’m sure we’re all aware that it used to be called Global Warming, but that was too dangerous a name; why? Because if the planet stopped going through a solar cycle 24 (Look it up) and warming, then it’d start doing other things which were once considered normal and global warming would look silly, so how do we make the people eat up this plan to extract them for more tax money even more?

I know: We’ll call it Climate Change! Perfect! And anytime it rains, or if there’s a hurricane, or if the sun shines, or if a volcano erupts, or if the seasons change, or if a baby cries, or if a sheep grows wool, we’ll blame the people! And once we have them convinced that it’s THEIR FAULT, we’ll start TAXING THEM FOR IT! And they’ll gladly do it because we made them believe they screwed themselves, and anybody that doesn’t agree with more tax because of this scheme is a denier, is a sceptic, is a Nazi Sympathizer, is a…

Yeah. You get my drift.

It’s OK. You don’t have to believe what I’m saying. How could you see such truth through your own self idolisation? I mean, after all, you are part of the community that now has the arrogance to believe that after earth has existed for 4.5 Billion years, you think you can now control the weather too.

Wow.

You ever follow the money trail of Climate Change? I’ll save you the trip; it goes straight to the governments who convinced you that it was your fault.

So each time an electricity bill comes, it not only hits your bank account, but it also makes you absorb some more guilt, because after all; the weather is all our fault right?

You still bang your drums that Gina and Rupert are feeding the people news and making them sheep as a result, whilst you meanwhile, are the biggest sheep of all; why? Because you believe what the mainstream media is feeding you either way. What, just because you don’t read The Telegraph (Pro Liberal), you think you’re not being influenced by what The Herald (Pro Labor) is saying? You even have the ABC and Channel 10 (Both Pro Labor). But either way, If you watch or read either, you lose out. But because one agrees with your stance, you nod along to it.

How hypocritical. What, you think The Herald is a voice of the people? Ha. It’s all garbage, my friends, but at least our garbage isn’t telling us it’s our fault that the planet is one degree less warmer than it was in the 15th century. (Look it up; earth was warmer back then)

Climate Change is an atheist’s religion. It’s an extremist view that the majority of you take, and it’s no different from the very religion which you all so despise; what, wtih the fire and brimstone promise of hell; yet you all claim that it will be a hell on earth if we don’t act now.

I guess there’s really not much difference between us then, is there?

Oh wait. There is. You see, if you bothered to listen to a conservative, we’d tell you our view on looking after the planet; we need to do it. And promptly. In fact, it’s what we all want. We can all make a difference.
But just as you don’t want to go to church, we don’t have to agree to go to yours either, particularly when it involves some bull crap tax which involves lining the governments coffers through fear mongering and blaming us for the so called poor state of the planet.

Wake up, man. Seriously. And as for this ‘It’s science’ bull crap: Follow the money trail.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 11:47 pm

And yes Tony was active in student politics. He was the most regressive, conservative, intolerant bully that I have ever come across. His views were in no way representative of the youth of the day. We laughed at him. He was an inconsequential bovver boy who could NEVER stand alone, the type that always needed a sycophantic gang around him. When he got in trouble, which happened frequently, his dad paid for legal teams to get him off. He did not have the courage to stand alone or to face the consequences of his actions. Little has changed.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 11:55 pm

Taylor, more people voted Labor than Liberal, sorry to burst your bubble. You talk about rewarding businesses who reduce emissions. You realise the taxpayers will be paying for that I suppose? I wonder if you could explain to me what happens to a company who increase their emissions? I have been unable to find that detail anywhere.

Kaye LeeNovember 23, 2013 at 11:57 pm

Taylor, did you hit the streets with your placards protesting about the burden on families and businesses imposed by the GST which, as you know, has added FAR more burden to us all than the carbon price.

MarcNovember 24, 2013 at 1:16 am

Kaye Lee,

I just saw this link and read over the comments and came to a realisation; In the many hours that you’ve been sitting online trying to save the world via posting endlessly on this link, I went out with friends, had dinner, beers, a laugh and an all around awesome time, and I now find myself back home.

You stayed online whilst I was out doing all those things. Which made me think:

You should probably try get out more. You might even find a life.

You know, like the one that Tony Abbott has.

Yeah, Tony Abbott. That guy you say you went to school with who is now the PRIME MINISTER OF OUR COUNTRY…he made good use of his studies and went on to lead the country. You obviously didn’t do the same, considering you’re posting endlessly on a Saturday night online.

He’s running the country; you’re here. What happened? Did the Climate Change and you weren’t able to study as hard as him? Was it a global warming period and it was just too hard to absorb information? Damn that extra degree in summer!

Reality check:

You say you used to laugh at Tony Abbott at school. Let me reiterate; he’s the prime minister of this Great Country; you are a pointless poster online.

Yeah. Someone’s being laughed at right now; but it ain’t Tony.

Thanks for the laugh.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 12:22 am

Avoidance Taylor? You have spoken at length about a “toxic tax” destroying businesses and families. I merely pointed out that the GST had a FAR greater impact, and still does, than the carbon tax….which if I wanted to be pedantic about (or correct in fact) is a fixed price ETS which was proposed to move to a floating price next year.

Businesses know there has to be action on climate change. They know it is inevitable that we will move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The whole world is moving that way and we are part of a global economy. This change of direction creates uncertainty in investment because they know we are only delaying what must come.

The ONLY people this makes happy is the fossil fuel industry. The miners are happy to continue paying 6c/litre fuel excise while you and I pay 38c/litre. Remember the miners? The ones responsible for our high Aussie dollar which is hurting so many other industries. The ones that are making superprofits on which they no longer have to pay the mining tax. Do they REALLY need MORE handouts at the expense of our planet?

doctorrob54November 24, 2013 at 1:32 am

Dan,in future if it makes you feel better I will try not to be overly emotional and keep abuse out of my posts,
note well,said try.But regardless,everything Kaye Lee says is true,based on what any reasonable person
can research Man made climate change is FACT,How can anyone give Taylor one ounce of credibility,Kaye
has known abbott for years,yet Taylor continues to dribble support,he has probably.never met the worm yet credits what they show in MSM.
You can argue people have a right to an opinion,but when it comes to argue/discus fact well they don’t.
In the real world an opinion is worth nothing,eg.Proof positive the Earth is close to 13.7 billion yrs old,fact.
Extreme religious nutters will argue it is 5000yrs old,Old school argue 4 to 5billion yrs old,well their both wrong and their OPINIONS are worth as much as a c#%t full of cold water(said I’d try)exactly what Taylor and people with his opinion are worth.Deniers are the problem,they are stopping the remedial action that should have begun years ago.
Keep up the good work Kaye,Earth needs you more than the Taylor’s of this world,their opinions are worth nothing.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 1:05 am

As there is a growing similarity in the comments, yes Michael, I would suggest this article has been posted to another site.

Rest assured Robert Miller, I do not get my scientific or economic facts or advice from Al Gore. I would never rely on what one individual told me. They may pique my interest, but that would only spur me to research further for myself. First thing I always do is check the credibility of the source and, as you point out, the money trail. That is how I came to realise that every single pseudo-scientist that denies global warming and climate change has connections to the fossil fuel industry. It is also how I found out about the Heartland Institute and who they represent. And to suggest that reading newspapers gives you the real picture is ludicrous. Why waffle on about who loves who in the media when we can actually go to scientific research and expert analysis.

Assuming you have read the previous comments, you will know understand that global warming and climate change are actually different things – no doubt linked – but there has been no “backdown” on the terminology. What an odd thing to say.

And could I say the phrases “atheists religion” and “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” and “global warming is now called climate change” etc etc etc are appearing in every single Abbott voters’ post. Come on kids…fess up….who is feeding you your lines. Don’t tell me we have been infiltrated by Peta. If we have then you all better be vetting anything you have to say in advance or you gonna be in twubble 😉

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 1:31 am

Marc, I am glad you had a nice evening with friends. And please don’t fret about me. I am enjoying myself too. I could run through my weekly schedule for you if you like, yanno, to get your approval…..that’s how it works isn’t it?

I also enjoy a good laugh and would ne interested in your reaction to these few tidbits.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/07/doha-climate-talks-ukip-lord-monckton

http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/gina-rineharts-battle-against-climate-change-science,4242

SteveNovember 24, 2013 at 2:59 am

Victoria, this “open letter’ you have written is simply wonderful. Although I am not about to indulge any feeble-minded attempts of stealing credibility by the LNP supporters here, I simply want to say thank you for voicing your anger. I’m certain this anger and outrage you feel is shared by MILLIONS all around Australia (myself included), and even more GLOBALLY. (Words in caps for all the detractors).
Victoria, good on you for standing up against these selfish voters who clearly didn’t vote in the best interests of the people or the planet. You deserve much kudos for your bravery and candor here. I wish you ever-growing success in your ongoing battle with these despots.
May we all, at some point in the near future, find a way to make amends for the gross misgivings of the voting public and the greedy elite. Stand proud and know that what you have said here is 100% warranted and just. You are a champion of common sense and decency, and those that understand your words truly will support your convictions. Keep up the good work and keep fighting the good fight (if there is such a thing). Kind regards. Metta to all.

CMMCNovember 24, 2013 at 6:16 am

Classic trollbath! Even includes Godwin-reflex courtesy of Robert Miller!

OK trolls, where were you when Warren Truss concocted the “drought” myth?

You know, this fanciful “Southern Oscillation Index” or “El Niño” hoax.

Why have billions of our tax dollars been spent to mitigate the “effects”
of this unproven theoretical model expounded by emotional politicians and a few “atmospheric scientists”?

Surely, this is politically motivated “science”, if it deserves such description at all.

AdamNovember 24, 2013 at 6:22 am

Morning Kaye,

You keep critiquing my posts on the basis of things I didn’t say.

I agree with you that plenty of jobs are qoing offshore for plenty of reasons. I said that myself. It is not just the carbon tax. My point was that the carbon tax adds to a cost disadvantage that is already hurting us.

And I agree that emission reductions in other countries give us benefit. But not all countries are acting. If every country acts, then the offshoring pressure goes away, and wherever manufacturing occurs, emissions are reduced. If not every country acts, I would expect manufacturing to flow to those countries who don’t act, because they have a cost advantage.

This is where I think Rudd, with his push for international action, had the right solution. He just gave up too soon.

AdamNovember 24, 2013 at 6:27 am

Taylor, the theory on climate change is not 100% certain but is in the high nineties.

It may be totally bollocks I guess, but that seems highly unlikely, most of the debate is around the pace of it.

Given the consequences if this highly likely theory is right, shouldn’t we be doing more?

Isn’t it pretty clearly documented that the liberals are divided on this issue, and that Abbott took the leadership from Turnbull precisely over the issue of voting for or against Labor’s ETS?

DCNovember 24, 2013 at 6:53 am

Adam I want to thank you for bringing up the argument that local carbon pricing pushes polluting industries offshore. This argument has been flogged like a dead horse by the Astrologers (IPA/Coalition/Murdoch/Jones/Bolt Et Al) since 2009, and was even spruiked by Joker Hockey when he was in Washington a couple of months back. The argument is very catchy but it’s also absolute bullshit for two reasons;

Firstly, any local polluting industries that face competition from overseas competitors from countries who do not have carbon pricing are eligible for “trade exposed industry” offsets to their company taxes to protect them from any overall loss in competitiveness.

Secondly, the bulk of Australia’s CO2 emissions do not come from “trade exposed industries” but instead come from local coal fired power plants. When it comes to our national energy grid, an island/continent nation like Australia does not face competition from companies operating under foreign jurisdictions. They may be foreign owned but they all must operate under local law and pay for polluting. The only competition coal fired power plants stand to lose market share to as a result of carbon pricing is local clean energy sources.

AdamNovember 24, 2013 at 7:18 am

DC, pleased to know you listen to Jones and Bolt and can tell me what they say. I don’t.

How does the trade exposed industry offset work? How correct and accurate is it? What is the cost of compliance? Sorry, but in general I believe these sorts of scheme, while well intentioned, don’t work. Too hard to get it right. This is at the heart of the ideological difference between left wing and right wing economics, so I expect we wil agree to diaagree, but that is my perspective. Large buearocracies are a problem.

And coal fired power stations are local, but the cost of energy is a factor in goods we import, that is why they have a direct bearing on our international competitiveness.

DCNovember 24, 2013 at 7:48 am

I don’t know how accurate it is but I do know that carbon pricing did not send any polluting industries overseas like the Astronomers predicted and nor should it need to. Coal fired power plants are so dirty that they pay the bulk of the carbon tax and this raises more than enough to fund offsets for trade exposed industries. Yes I know all businesses pay for power but they all pay company tax too, so if businesses have increases to their power expenses but decreases to their company tax expenses it works out ok for some, better for others maybe slightly worse for a few. This is not a left/right issue at all it is only self interest groups that seek to present it that way. Carbon pricing is not the only way but it makes much more sense to price carbon than not to

Nathan ThomasNovember 24, 2013 at 8:00 am

I’m no fan of the Abbott lead Lberal govt for so many reasons.

But the tone of this article really turned me off and I didn’t end up reading it all.

I always think the best way to debate is with fact not sarcasm and cheap shots all the way through.

This article does nothing to convert ignorant and disengaged voters.

AdamNovember 24, 2013 at 8:09 am

How do you know carbon pricing did not sent any industries overseas? How do you know the government balanced tax changes (carbon and corporate) so it would be neutral on affected industries. How do you even measure that?

You advocate policies based on wealth redistribution by a large government. I believe the rep is a place for that,, but it gets overdone.

doctorrob54November 24, 2013 at 8:37 am

How much fact and time do you want.When I was young15/16,now am 59yrs,I’d listen to a man on my transistor radio,called Garner Ted Armstrong,from what I remember he sounded lick a preacher or evangelist,but very interesting.He had a slot late at night,he use to talk about pollution,toxic rivers etc then,
and here we are today still giving lying misfits eg,Bolt and his ilk,For crying out loud you will always have deniers,they are payed by the very mob that are destroying this plant.There opinions are worth nothing.Time for action is now,and not this BS direct action a true denier is promoting.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 9:47 am

Victoria, you should consider yourself a success. You have drawn many out, that have been spouting many facts that can easily be disputed.

They say you and those whose support your view, as being stupid. Yet at the same time,. they accused you of only relying on insults, and that to put forwarded the views in your letter, is insulting to them and their ilk.

What they really saying, is only them that have the right to opinions and to put forwarded facts.

The rest of us are supposed to roll over and shut up.

It is not the lack of facts and argument that is put forwarded that is upsetting them. It is because you have taken the time to do so.

Insiders is interesting this morning. Yes, this government does indeed works in secret. Major changes are being made, across all portfolios, not a word, even in the House. It appears this government has done a 180 degree turn on our relations to Israel. Not a word or explanation to anyone. Same in Poland.

Cassidy just pointed out that Abbott is not being criticized for not apologizing, but how he is reacting.

Victoria, one thing for sure, time will tell us who is right when it comes to Abbott.

For all our sakes, those who have had their noses put out of joint, better be right.

Sadly, seeing all that we have been saying for years coming to fruition, in many ways worse that even we could have imagined,

Ignore the personal insults, and keep up your good work.

I suspect Menzies House might be getting more cleverer in how they manage and silence this and like blogs.

Got news for them, we are also on a steep learning curve.

CMMCNovember 24, 2013 at 9:49 am

How Indonesia sees Abbott.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/abbott-cartoonist-recalled-to-ridicule-pm-20131124-2y3e9.html

PeterNovember 24, 2013 at 9:59 am

The biggest mistake ever made by scientists in their deliberations over the climate change modelling, was to declare that ‘to do nothing about climate change will cost more than doing something to solve it immediately’.
There is no conspiracy, certainly not organised, but this one statement caused companies everywhere to think ‘cha-ching!’ More money to be made by repairing the results of climate change than by doing something about it!
If you were in business, which would you choose?

Möbius EckoNovember 24, 2013 at 10:21 am

There’s nothing wrong with Tony holding the views that he does. Sure you may not agree with them but that doesn’t mean you should ridicule him. You should at least respect the views that he holds.

Taylor unless you can show me where a considerable majority of right wing supporters said the same thing about Gillard and showed respect to her when she was PM then you’re demonstrating their hypocrisy.

I’ve posted on this double standard from the right where they demand respect for their leader and party but demonstrate some of the greatest disrespect against anyone opposing their view, and especially against leaders and organisations who are not right wing.

I see it now across blogs where the right wing commentators are demanding that Labor not engage in low tactics in parliament, the very tactics Abbott engaged in for three years, that they cease pointing out Abbott’s failures and being negative, the very thing Abbott and the Liberals have been doing against Labor up winning the election. In other words they want a double standard, where the right can do and say anything with impunity as long as they win doing it but heaven help any other party doing the same, they will be crucified.

And that’s what it boils down to with the right, winning. It’s not about what’s best for the country or its people, especially not the long term good, it’s about beating the crap out of everyone who opposes them and their very narrow ideological view of the world.

730reportlandNovember 24, 2013 at 10:31 am

Dear Vicky Rollison,
3rd-class citizens such as yourself (and_me) need to brace ourselves for much more disappointment, it has only just begun. Mr-Rabbit will run a `no-surprise` government, of that we can be sure. These are John-W`s reheated zombies, and they will behave exactly the same as they did, pre-2007. Don`t fret too much, as Mr-Rabbit and his zombies are highly predictable, and everything they do will fall into 3-categories.
1-Trough-snouting for the rich. (eg Brandis/Wedding)
2-Austerity for the poor/working-class. (eg Workchoice rebranded)
3-Surplus Fetish

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 10:36 am

Yes, I respect the office of PM.

As for it’s present holder and his supporters, they can only expect the same respect, that they gave the present Opposition over the last few years. The last six in particular.

At least this Opposition is putting the good of the country forefront, and are not kicking Abbott while he is down.

They are doing their best to remain bipartisan, when it comes to the problems that Abbott has created for himself.

Sp, Mr. Abbott and Co, I will give you the respect, you give all that do not agree with what you say.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 10:40 am

ME, yes, I agree he is entitled to his views, as we are.

My complaint is that he is not letting us in on the secret of what they are.

If one has views, surely one would expect to let the public in, on what they are.

If they are so great, why the secrecy.

If one has views as PM, they are not personal.

One expects one PM to explain what they are doing. Yes telling us what and how.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 10:42 am

When Mr. Abbott said he would be running a no surprised government he meant it.

If he does not tell us what they are up to, we cannot be surprised.

Dan RowdenNovember 24, 2013 at 11:11 am

doctorrob54,

The emotions everyone feels about this are entirely justified. But expressing anger and directing insult at people who don’t see things the way you do is not a strategy that has any merit whatever. I know it’s hard not to vent occasionally, but when it comes to people authoring pieces that are designed to – well, I don’t know what the hell some of what is written is actually designed to do. It certainly won’t make people rethink their position.

It’s worth remembering that for some people, denial of the seriousness of the matter is a kind of psychological defense mechanism. Some people just don’t have the emotional reserves to deal with it, to worry about the future in the way that is necessary. It’s not their fault, really. For such people we have to make the case that the worry and concern can only be mitigated by effective action. That if such action is taking place we can feel far more secure about the future.

Some deniers are idiot ideologues. That is absolutely true, and such people are quietly infuriating; they cannot be reached. But not everyone is like that. Pummeling people with your point of view has the effect of making them want to think even less about the issue. That’s not what we want.

AnthonyNovember 24, 2013 at 11:11 am

The irony that everyone is using electricity off the grid and driving cars to and from work. Heres a thought, instead of writing arguments (which there will never be an end state to or a conclusion to), how about everyone rides to work and uses solar power. Maybe we can all contribute in some small way instead of blaming everyone else…. the companies produce the emissions because YOU the consumer wants them.

The time that we stop trying to pass the buck as the individual we might find better options that can achieve lower emissions yet achieve the same output.

By all means, continue sitting on the couch casting stones and blaming someone else (how many tree’s did you destroy by buying that couch anyway?).

Instead of researching climate change and reading papers, maybe you can research power saving and energy saving technologies that can be implemented into homes in order to save people money and assist the environment.

The fact that you are blaming the right and not the left just highlight how misplaced you actually are…. its your fault, as well as mine.. and not the governments.

PaulaNovember 24, 2013 at 11:25 am

Ok I have the read the letter and enough comments to know this:
1) you are biased ignorant bitch
2) I voted for Abbott, for reasons other than you claim most Abbott supporters do
3) I don’t believe in climate change as it is currently discussed
4) I do believe the planet is in a process of natural climate cycle. After we had an ice age so many thousands of years ago and yes it is getting warmer, but when you look back so many billions of years of our planets life cycle, you see a cycle of warmer, Normal, colder, normal, all thanks to forces beyond our control to a process only scientist can relate to our planet evolving.
4)a) I believe some companies have a hand in helping the warmer weather, but are you also going to say the same to all the cows in all the fields all over the world, and slap a bag over their butts or price a carbon tax on each head of cattle.?
5) Abbott has policies that some are good and some are not so good. But in general, people who did vote for Abbott, wanted a change from labour and their shit policies. It was Rudd and Gillard imposed this carbon tax that no normal person wanted and every other country dismissed. We were laughed at by other countries when it was imposed. And th carbon tax should have gone through a referendum.
5)a) let Abbott lead us for a term before calling him out. Then we can all vote again and see you wins then. Hopefully an independent will win next time.
5)b) Abbott should not apologise to Indonesia because it happened under labours Rudd and Gillard. They should apologise if they want to and let them see the repercussions of such a folly.
6) I believe we should cull energy sources relating to coal, or CSG.
7) I believe we should invest in energy sources that are renewable, solar farms, wind farms, magnetic energy, hydro farms, desalinisation plants and the like.
8) lastly, I don’t like you, a total stranger, calling me stupid and ignorant, because you don’t know me or what I thought when I voted, and therefore calling me names because you don’t like labour losing. Hello, this a free country, we can think and feel and vote for whoever we damn well please. Without being victimised from sore losers. :-p

Möbius EckoNovember 24, 2013 at 11:31 am

Yet Paula your post, especially on climate change displays ignorance, so why shouldn’t you be called ignorant?

spinNovember 24, 2013 at 11:32 am

This has been a fascinating read. I mean the comments. Victoria’s piece, while I appreciate the basic sentiments, comes across as communal phone sex. There is no real intercourse. What could be the communicative goal of a piece that seems written to alienate its stated audience? A lot of people voted for Abbott, which should indicate that, despite the science, a lot of people support his crypto-denialist position regarding global warming and the need to change our behaviour if we are to avert the drastic consequences of prolonged interference with the chemical structure of our atmosphere.

The replies that support this open letter help to reinforce the gulf between those who voted against mitigating action regarding global warming and those ever so wise people who respond either by rubberstamping the letter or by bagging out the conscienceless bigots who voted Abbott. Calling people bigots will not have any positive effect. Rather than drawing lines that people won’t cross, surely the necessity is to open up dialogue and find out why people think the way they do and if reasoning can change thinking. Intercourse requires interchange. Conception requires the removal of the diaphragm and the condom. Ideas must be exchanged. You can’t have semen on one side of the hermetically sealed barrier and ova on the other and expect anything to happen.

Despite the fact that the science is in, the mineral pillaging institutions have done a great job confusing the voting public regarding what the issues are through their lobbying via organizations such as the Lavoisier Group and through their financing of vocal denialists. Add to that the fact that our media are colonized by people with similar big business interests to those of the mineral giants at least regarding global warming. The seed has widely been disseminated that 1) we are involved in a giant hoax perpetrated by conspiracy theorists on the one hand and that 2) those scientists supporting the notion of human caused global warming are doing so because of pecuniary interests on the other. You may laugh, but these views are strongly held and we have to do something positive to clarify the reality, rather than pissing on those people we depend on to change their minds.

Putting a price on carbon forceably pushes carbon into public consideration. The short time frame result will be that business interests will naturally attempt to pass it all onto the consumer, as those interests are ruled by immediate profit. It is only after some time that some companies will find means to reduce their carbon footprint and make their money more ecologically. We cannot expect any companies to act responsibly, as the only responsibility they have is to maximizing shareholder profit. This means that ordinary people will be shafted by any measures taken against global warming, yet not taking steps against it means that we guarantee that we are shafted anyway. It’s a lose-lose situation, one way it is short term, the other is long term. One is longsighted, the other is shortsighed. But we want the money for our gas-guzzlers and out wide-screens and our iphones. The bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. What do you say to that? Why should we give it up for conspiracy theories and co-opted scientists? That’s what you have to respond to: are you just a conspiracy theorist? are you just a dupe of financially interested scientists? I’m right and you’re wrong. End of conversation. Is that how this discussion has to go?

We have to communicate better if we want to make progress.

Möbius EckoNovember 24, 2013 at 11:35 am

Well said spin, but how we communicate better with so much of the outlets for communications being controlled and influenced by the very groups you mention is the question.

spinNovember 24, 2013 at 11:38 am

Möbius Ecko: “Yet Paula your post, especially on climate change displays ignorance, so why shouldn’t you be called ignorant?”

Because you will achieve nothing positive in doing so. Paula’s comments are all reasonable in their context and need to be addressed rather than labeled. You could start with “Hello, this is a free country” and explain why it isn’t.

spinNovember 24, 2013 at 11:43 am

Möbius Ecko: “how we communicate better with so much of the outlets for communications being controlled and influenced by the very groups you mention is the question.”

This is what emergent alternative news sources are attempting to address, sources such as the one that hosts this article and discussion. We should help them to have more success in their efforts to reach a wider audience by constructive criticism.

730reportlandNovember 24, 2013 at 11:55 am

Australia is cursed with resources, much in the way Africa is. ln Africa it manifests as militia/tribal/warlord violence. ln Australia it manifests as political stupidity/gridlock. The carbon tax/price/derivative-idea is really a poor idea, well meaning, but stupid. For every `measure` of coal we dig up, (pay-carbon-tax-on) and use/burn, we send twice as much off-shore un-carbon-taxed. lf we burn/use 100 tons of coal, then we have exported 200 tons in the same time-frame. The amount we will export in the future will grow, not shrink.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 11:05 am

Good Morning Adam,

Lets look at what has happened since the introduction of the carbon tax to see if it has had a negative effect.

In the year following the introduction of the carbon tax, inflation was 2.4%, so the argument about the cost of living skyrocketing is just not true.

Furthermore, since the price on carbon came into effect, more than half a trillion dollars has been added to the combined value of housing and stocks listed on the Australian Securities Exchange. That is $500,000,000,000.00, or the equivalent of $22,000 for every man, woman and child, all of which has accrued in just over a year.

And this half a trillion dollar does not include dividends, in the case of stocks, or actual and imputed rent on dwellings. Dividend payments on stocks over that time are around an additional $65 billion or so.

The half a trillion dollar lift in the stock market and house prices reflects a 23 per cent lift in the ASX since 1 July 2012 which had added approximately $275 billion to the value of stocks, while a 5.1 per cent rise in house prices has added approximately $235 billion to the value of housing over the same timeframe.

This is hardly the stuff of an economic wrecking ball or outcomes that are ripping the heart out of businesses and families. On the contrary, it is a stunning boost.

In terms of the jobs results, total employment has risen by 160,400 since the carbon price commenced, which again stands in contrast to the claims from the fear mongers.

The bottom line of all of this is that the economy is still growing, creating jobs and registering a quite stunning lift in wealth in the period since carbon was priced.

And it is also worth noting that because of carbon pricing, emissions are falling and renewable energy generation is growing, which is exactly what the policy was meant to do!

Why change it?

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 12:24 pm

It is not about using less electricity. It is about changing the way that electricity is generated.

It is about making electricity, produce by fossil fuels, pay for the emissions they are polluting the atmosphere with.

It is about finding new clean energy technology, that will take industry into the future.

The legislation, all eight bills where well named. Clean Energy Future.

Many have already benefited, Some have found their power bills lowered massively, from changes in technology. Some high electricity users, are now feeding electricity into the grid.

There was one bill to raise money that is being used to create many new industry’e and jobs, way into the future.

This is the way to go, regardless of whether carbon emissions causes harm to the environment.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 11:27 am

Anthony I fully agree about personal responsibility. It’s the same argument I use towards those who feel not voting is an option. Every little bit helps and we all must do our part.

Having said that, governments have a role to play. If electricity prices go up slightly, people may think more about reducing their own energy consumption. They can also encourage switching to solar by rebates and installation grants. I hesitate to mention the pink batts but the reality is that a million homes now have insulation, reducing their heating and cooling costs for many years to come.

Governments can also support research and development into renewable energy and sustainable practice. They can introduce measures that make it more attractive for businesses to move towards clean energy. They can level the playing field for competing types of energy by actually putting a price on the environmental and health damage done by polluters.

Another concern is that Tony Abbott has allocated between 11 and 18 billion (reports differ) for building more roads but has scrapped all proposed spending on urban rail. We don’t need MORE cars on the roads in our cities – we need public transport!

BenjaminDavidNovember 24, 2013 at 12:29 pm

Victoria – thank you for sharing your opinion though I feel you should probably LISTEN to people’s reasons for voting the way they did instead of ASSUMING you know why people make decisions. It’s not because they are any less caring nor are they any less educated (though from reading your letter – I don’t think you agree) than you.

I VOTED ABBOTT AND I BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE (and I am also gay!)

I believe that CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL but I believe it will be managed by the markets at an individual level. I trust that people in general believe this is an issue and the people as a collective will create the resolution. If there is a market, the market will be created through necessity, through this people will not purchase goods that are not part of the healthy planet option – it’s simple economics.

I believe this on many issues including same sex marriage. Let’s face it. There is a fundamental difference between the left and right – left believes that government needs to fix everything because people themselves are too stupid and the right believe in the intellect and capability of the individual. It doesn’t mean we don’t want the same things – we just have different ideas on getting there. Don’t be so conceited as to think anything else.

Reading over this post there seems to be a great amount of anger towards Abbott voters – again, why? It was our democracy working – this is a good thing. We are lucky.

Please don’t insult others for following their conscience.

John WardNovember 24, 2013 at 11:33 am

AND ANOTHER THING!
When the incoming NSW Greiner Government was briefed regarding a longitudinal study on early retirement (as an answer to youth unemployment) we reported thus:
If you retire at 55, you live to 84;
If you retire at 60, you live to 72;
finally if you retire at 65, you live to 67.

John Fahey replied, “Good, let em die on the job”.

That is why successive governments have consciously legislated to increase the retirement age.
A callous disregard to the well-being of their elders. Particularly those in manual and trades work, on whom the main burden of this policy will fall.
These decisions seem to be at odds with recent trends of the ‘obesity tsunami’ where large portions of the population will die out before retirement

An alternative scheme was drafted by a conservative icon.

At the 1937 federal election, the United Australia Party had promised to introduce a system of national insurance that would provide medical cover and pensions for working people. The scheme was to be funded by contributions from government, employers and employees. Menzies, who had helped draft the policy, was an enthusiastic supporter of the scheme. For him it constituted good social policy and, once adequate superannuation funds had been accumulated, promised to relieve taxpayers of what was likely to become an intolerable burden in the future.

Unfortunately the United Australia Party’s coalition partners were not nearly so keen about the proposal. Although a National Insurance Bill was passed, Country Party ministers continued to resist its implementation, arguing that the money was needed elsewhere, particularly to provide for ‘adequate defence’. After a series of stormy meetings, Cabinet succumbed to Country Party threats and decided to repeal the pension provisions of the Bill. Menzies immediately resigned from the ministry.

Although some within the party questioned Menzies’ decision, he was widely supported by the party rank and file and by the press.

If the share of contribution was 5% per party, [worker, boss and government], by the time that fund had built up we would not today need Foreign investment, our savings would fund nation building in our own right.
One of the few things I admire Menzies for was his stand on this issue.

Dan RowdenNovember 24, 2013 at 12:43 pm

Given the content of the article, I think people like Paula are entitled to call Victoria anything they wish. I’m sure Victoria can take it.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 12:45 pm

Well at least they are coming out, and I think defending the PM.

Well at least that is what I think they are doing.

Many seem more interested in putting the boot into many that disagree with what they say.

Not only that, they are taking time, to attempt to put up some debating points in detail.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 11:46 am

Paula,

Starting a letter with “you are a biased ignorant bitch” and then going on to complain about name-calling from a stranger is kind of ironic don’t you think?

We know that the earth has gone through periods or warming and cooling before caused by various different things. The point is that THIS lot of warming is due to manmade emissions and is happening at a rate far faster than any time in the past. We can tell this from ice core samples among other things. The earth can adapt when changes take place over thousands of years. It cannot adapt quickly enough to the onslaught of the last 150 years.

Regarding the cows, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide. I would suggest we eat less meat and dairy products.

You are incorrect about other countries not taking action on climate change. The climate change talks in Warsaw (to which Tony didn’t bother sending any politicians) have outlined what various countries are doing and a strategy for the future. Australia has been soundly criticised for destroying the negotiations and blocking proposed action for the future. The world is very angry with us for abrogating our global responsibilities.

The thing that always strikes me about Abbott voters is that they cannot give one reason for voting FOR Tony Abbott. After repeated requests I am yet to be given an answer to the question of how this government will improve my life or the welfare of the nation or the planet. Labor’s infighting was ridiculous but they kept governing through it all, passing almost 600 pieces of legislation and steering Australia through the GFC and emerging with one of the strongest economies in the world.

What’s Tony offering?

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 12:53 pm

Wonder why many believe that Abbott believes in man made climate change and will take steps to deal with it.

All his actions since being elected. point to the opposite. We now have the sight of him, undermining the Warsaw conference at this time.

We have DA which there does not seem to be any experts supporting. In fact, the truth is, the aim of DA has changed over time.

First, it was based on solid sequestration, until a farmer,pointed out, it could not work.

We then moved on to planting trees. Have not heard much about that ;lately. Maybe the fact that one needs water and fertile land is starting to sink in.

Now somehow it has become a market based scheme. No one has been able to say, why. Something about reversed markets. Any idea of what the are talking about.

The last I heard,, was that they were asking us, the community, how to make it work.

So those, who views I respect, if they can enlighten us, what DA, which they say, they voted for, will work.

Layman’s language will suffice.

Personally, I will be surprise, if DA ever sees the light of day.

JoeNovember 24, 2013 at 12:58 pm

Brow beating, self-righteous, condescending; a terrible post.. And I’m a Labor voter and staunch supporter of the ETS.

It’s people like you and letters like this that give all left wing people a bad reputation.

Instead of ranting on the Internet, talking in broad sweeping statements and ad hominim attacks against all LNP voters, and generally being intolerable, go out, get some drinks with people and have a friendly conversation about the issues. Who knows, some of them may listen

So so sick of arrogant left wingers making me look bad.

Michael TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 11:58 am

Kaye Lee, I wonder if Paula starts her comments on Andrew Bolt’s blog with “You are a biased ignorant bastard”. 😉

majorbeenzNovember 24, 2013 at 1:01 pm

What a terrible article. And it has nothing to do with the climate change debate. This has to be one of the most arrogant, self-righteous articles I’ve ever seen. I can clearly tell you were born in fairly comfortable lifestyle and have never had to struggle a day in your life. To abuse and look down on people who may be struggling to pay the bills for voting to potentially improve their lot in life is a disgrace. That money could be the difference between their children getting an education and a shot in life and dropping out to get a dead end job.

Labor really do need to ignore people like you and go back to fighting for the working class. The people who have always relied on them in order to make their lives better. You clearly wouldn’t do a thing for these people. For shame.

bobraftoNovember 24, 2013 at 1:06 pm

The narrative on the compensation package has been completely disregarded. I stand corrected but the tax threshold has been lifted from $6 to $18K, that represents around $2K saving enough to pay the annual electricity bill.

One term tony is scrapping the so called Carbon tax but letting the compensation package stand. The public is now getting a financial package for nothing. Just crumbs to what the big polluters can expect from one term tony.

BenjaminDavidNovember 24, 2013 at 1:08 pm

Boycotting based on a political parties request is NOT market activity. Gees get a grip.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 12:10 pm

Michael, that would be stating the bleedin’ obvious.

I find the criticism of this article quite interesting. Some have heaved a sigh of sympatico to have their frustration vented. Some have criticised the belligerent tone. Some have suggested that it only serves to make the other side stop listening.

We are up to almost 200 comments from pretty much the full spectrum of opinion. Many points have been brought up and discussed by both sides. Sometimes it takes a swift kick up the bum to get us up and fighting and hopefully, listening as all sides express their views, asking for justification for statements, presenting counter arguments.

Isn’t this exactly what we need to be doing? I give Victoria credit for being the catalyst for a passionate exchange.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm

And I will remind you that Mr Bolt has been feted by the State (at our expense) along with those other doyens of journalism, Piers Akerman, Alan Jones, Janet Albrechtsen, Miranda Devine, Gerard Henderson, Paul Sheehan and Chris Kenny. They have been rewarded for services to ….ummmm…..something….by a soiree hosted by Peta at Kirribilli House. They must surely be worthy of our respect.

Dan RowdenNovember 24, 2013 at 1:26 pm

Fed up,

Not only that, they are taking time, to attempt to put up some debating points in detail.

And they should be encouraged to do so. That way we actually know what they’re thinking rather than make it up. It’s useless taking past people, making points they can’t relate to. There will be times, of course, that things will seem even worse than we imagined, but at least we will know what’s really in people’s heads. Paula, for example, provided a number of talking points. Are we going to just dismiss her with a blithe “God you’re stupid” or will we help her see the errors in her perspective? The latter might prove somewhat effective. The former can’t achieve anything.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 1:28 pm

Why not just tell us where we are wrong, and leave the personal imputations out of it.

Many are doing, what they accused the author of.

Tell us why this PM is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Convince us, we have no need not to trust Mr. Abbott, and that we misjudge him.

Convince us, we are worrying unnecessarily so.

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 24, 2013 at 1:30 pm

I’m a bit intrigued by people who say that Australia ONLY contributes about 1% of the world’s emissions as though that’s somehow insignificant. Particularly when they go on to argue that we’re such a SMALL country that has no influence.
Of course, 1% is so small as to be insignificant but the carbon tax which was responsible for an increase of about 9% on energy bills is ENORMOUS.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 12:40 pm

Benjamin, Tony is working on removing our right to drive change by market action.

CONSERVATION groups seeking boycotts of products linked to alleged poor environmental practices may soon be liable for prosecution under consumer law.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/companies-to-get-protection-from-activists-boycotts/story-fn59niix-1226724817535#sthash.t6LQyTkA.dpuf

The free trade agreements that he is keen to push through could make boycotts illegal as they harm a companies market. An example of this is that our government is being sued for 200 million by Philip Morris for our plain packaging laws for cigarettes. Any legislation or action by groups or individuals that adversely affect profit leaves them open to litigation through Investor State Dispute Resolution (ISDR) action. Our PBS is at risk, and generic medicines will disappear. The implications are far-reaching.

Michael TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 12:52 pm

Dan, I’m sure that anybody who writes here has a long history of facing criticism. Fortunately, most of the criticism we receive here is from an intelligent contributor who rightly or wrongly holds an alternate opinion. There are the odd exceptions, of course, as this post has highlighted.

RhondaNovember 24, 2013 at 1:56 pm

Kaye Lee,
You’re right about cows contributing to 18% of greenhouse gases.

You’re supplying the rest.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Actually, Paula got me thinking. We keep talking about the carbon tax which conjours up images of factories belching smoke but, as she rightly points out, agriculture is responsible for a high proportion of our greenhouse gas emissions. I found a very interesting article from the CSIRO, which also helps understand the potential of some of the Direct Action strategies. On cows they had this to say:

“Australia’s cattle and sheep industries are significant producers of methane – 15.9 per cent of Australian GHG emissions came from agriculture and 67.4 per cent of that was methane produced by ruminants*.

The Sustainable Agriculture Flagship is conducting research to understand the management and dietary factors that affect methane emissions from cattle in Northern Australia, where half of the nation’s cattle herd grazes.”

It is a great shame that we have cut so many scientists from the CSIRO. They do the work we need to plan our future.

http://www.csiro.au/science/Carbon-Australian-agriculture

TerryNovember 24, 2013 at 2:02 pm

Adam,

Don’t bother getting into a ‘Debate’ with Kaye.

She’s basically just rehashing links of information she found from people on sites that support her views.

She’s not even making sense in her responses because they are all manufactured from articles she idolises.

Let it go, bro.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 1:19 pm

Benjamin I don’t understand what you are saying. Politics has nothing to do with it. This is ALL about corporations taking over.

A World Trade Organization panel ruled that U.S. “dolphin-safe” labeling rules violate free trade agreements with Mexico.

Free trade critics say a $250-million damage suit being pursued as a result of Quebec’s moratorium on fracking is proof Canada needs to be careful in negotiating trade pacts around the world.

The Council of Canadians, the Sierra Club and Quebec-based Eau secours say the suit by Lone Pine Resources Inc. (TSX:LPR) shows that trade deals that include investor protection clauses are a bad idea because they can prevent governments from passing laws to protect the environment.

Canada recently denied a patent application for a drug that failed to meet the conditions for patent under Canadian law, and this led a US pharma company to demand $100 million in compensation.

Dow AgroSciences, a U.S. corporation, served a claim for losses allegedly caused by Quebec’s ban on the sale and certain uses of lawn pesticides containing 2,4-D.

Chemtura Corporation, a US pesticide manufacturer, has alleged that through its Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), Canada wrongfully terminated its pesticide business and issued a claim.

In 2012 over 500 multi million dollar law suits where lodged globally under ISDR provisions. In fact Ecuador had to pay out $1.77 billion in a single settlement to Occidental Petroleum, as a result of having ISDR clauses in their FTA.

I don’t think saying “get a grip” quite covers it.

TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm

The Liberal Party nor Tony Abbott nor the Abbott Government has never denied the science of climate of change. All I was saying is that the science is just a theory and therefore shouldn’t be taken as 100% truth.

Also, as I said before, I, along with the Liberal Party and the Abbott Government are 100% committed to building a greener future. However, we, as a party do not believe the way to go about that is through a socialist agenda disguised as environmentalism.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 1:35 pm

I would be very interested to hear the response from an Abbott voter to this article which asks “Is Australia a risk of becoming the coal equivalent of a petro-state. Here are five warning signs.”

1. Ignoring the Climate Change Authority’s recommendation on carbon pollution reductions

2. Australia “missing in action” at COP Warsaw climate negotiations

3. Starving Australia’s renewable energy industries

4. Handing over environmental powers to the states

5. Demonising climate action as “socialism”

It is well worth reading the article if you have time and I would appreciate your comments.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2013/nov/17/tony-abbott-climate-denier-coal-socialism

Liam HastieNovember 24, 2013 at 2:39 pm

Victoria Rollison,

Its good to know that you and many other people are genuinely concerned about the conservation of our dear planet Earth and want to do your bit, but it is infuriating to read an article that condescendingly tars every single Liberal voter with the same brush.

The only people who voted for Tony Abbott were those in his electorate, all other “Abbott voters” voted for their Liberal candidate, not Tony Abbott.

Did you ever consider the possibility that Liberal voters had other motives? Motives other than saving on their electricity bills? Although climate change is enormously important, it was not the only issue prior to the election.

You seem to ignore the fact that many if not most Australians don’t give a shit about politics and see voting as being somewhat of an infrequently required chore. Accusing these millions of innocent people of being greedy and selfish to the point of being “dangerous” for putting the wrong number in the wrong box is beyond unfair.

Your blatantly overgeneralising open letter is fundamentally flawed and the obnoxious tone and loaded language used suggests to me that you consider yourself morally and intellectually superior to all who this letter is aimed at. Pure arrogance.

Angrily telling half of Australia’s population that their ignorance and selfishness is jeopardising the lives of future generations is simply ridiculous. What were you intending to achieve by writing this?

Sentences removed by admin. Not suitable for publication.

Jed WalkerNovember 24, 2013 at 2:41 pm

Ken oath….
Anyways, the radiation from Fukushima might get us all before the ‘carbon’ does!

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 1:47 pm

Fed up, you asked for easy to understand explanations of Direct Action. This is a repeat of something I posted before. These three articles seem to sum up available opinion on the matter.

http://theconversation.com/will-the-oppositions-direct-action-plan-work-12309

“The take-home message is simple. The Coalition’s plan is based on incomplete science, dubious economics and breath-taking political expediency. It will be hugely expensive. It won’t cut carbon emissions. It won’t even lead to lower taxes. And it will still introduce a shadow price for carbon.”

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

ElNovember 24, 2013 at 2:47 pm

Are you for real. Climate change is a natural phenomenon which has been occurring since the dawn of time. No tax will ever stop it. Ask a geologist what is really happening and you will hear the truth. But I’m sorry I forgot geologists are not on the climate change band wagons payroll, so they will speak the truth rather than accept payment to give you the bullshit spin that you want to believe in.

Comment edited by admin.

TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 3:01 pm

That’s a point that I’ve often made but I thought I wouldn’t raise. Climate change is a natural part of the earth’s life. We, along with all living life can and will adapt just like we did before.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 3:16 pm

I suspect that Labor’s aim is to do what is best for the country, not just the so called working people.

That sounds a little like class war to me.

As for Labor today being seen a socialist party, whatever that means, is a long time, back in the distant past.

I hate to say this, but when trying to pin down what Abbott’s view is on anything, is his habit of having opposing views on most. It was he, that saw himself as a weather vane.

Abbott has the habit of telling each audience what they want to hear. A habit that gets him into strife at times.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm

PS. I would like to add, I am not talking about Abbott changing his mind Nothing wrong, if that was the case. I admire those who change their mind or promises when circumstances changed. In Abbott’s case, that is something he does NOT see as prudent.

No, when it comes to Abbott, he has been known to seesaw between opposing positions.

spinNovember 24, 2013 at 3:19 pm

Taylor: “I, along with the Liberal Party and the Abbott Government are 100% committed to building a greener future. However, we, as a party do not believe the way to go about that is through a socialist agenda disguised as environmentalism.”

I don’t know why you interpret the carbon regime before the election as a “socialist agenda”. Numerous countries around the world have introduced a carbon tax, none of which could reasonably be termed “socialist”. Do you have a significant criticism of carbon pricing?

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Yes, I suspect humans will adjust to climate change. Those that manage to survive at least.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 2:21 pm

lololol thankyou for those informed contributions to the debate Rhonda and Terry. You have convinced me that Tony is right lololol

TerryNovember 24, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Climate Change is the best thing that ever happened to the Labour Party and it’s extremist supporters.

It’s the ultimate distraction from their own parties failed policies and miserable leadership woes. They deflect everything towards it:

Kevin Rudd ruining relations with the US after he publicly spoke about a conversation he had with George W. Bush to journalists? Who cares! It’s all about Climate Change!

Kevin Rudd getting dumped by his own party because he was an incompetent and quite possibly the worst prime minister this country has ever had? You ignore that and yell instead: But what about Climate Change!?

Kevin opening the borders and making the piracy trade thrive, whilst we literally watched men, women and children being killed as they are shattered on the rocks at Christmas Island on inept boats? Why bother caring about the effects of these reversed policies!? It’s only about Climate Change!

Julia Gillard being just as bad, and then being replaced by Rudd again? Who cares! What about Climate Change!?

The fact remains that Climate Change is the one sure thing Laborites can stick to, as because of the propaganda around it, they can always crap on about it being correct.

The earths been here for billions of years, and most of you have been here around 30-40 years; so you must know better than the planet because a couple of paid scientists told you.

Did you know that the leading scientist for Global Warming, was 30 years ago leading the charge for his Global Cooling Theory? Look it up. They created the same fear mongering campaign back then, telling us we’d all screwed up the planet and that we were heading for an ice age. It’s actually laughable.

I implore you. Look it up. I’ll even give you a link that’s actually quite humorous, to make the blow of living with yourself so much easier when you realise you are full of propaganda and gas.

Do any of you know what a Solar Cycle 24 is?
Do any of you know that other planets, like Mars, are heating up within our solar system, yet the so called Scientists on Climate Change have no theory as to why this is?

Hahahaha. You’re all off the deep end. You truly are. But it’s not even, at it’s core, about Climate Change for you. I’ll tell you what it’s about:

It’s about the hate you have for yourself and your own life. Yeah. You:

You Laborites with your bleeding hearts; hearts which only bleed for people who don’t make as much money as you, as poor people don’t make you feel insecure about yourself, as they don’t remind you of your own failures; rich people, or anyone that earns above 100K do, and that’s why you hate us; because you suck at life, and we’re really good at it, and your Climate Change anger is a way for you to vent against the world. Nice work.

TerryNovember 24, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Here’s the link, as promised. Enjoy the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v4Q9Wv10Ho

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 3:36 pm

Have I not read, that piggeries and like , with the latest technology are using the carbon emissions generate electricity. Some even managing to feed some back into the grids.

Same goes for rubbish tips, which are big knitters, and liable under the legislation. An example that Abbott loves to use for the argument against the toxic tax.

Some councils have used assistance from the great big toxic tax, to turn a serious liability into an asset.

Yes, the councils that did not prepare, did pay the tax.

spinNovember 24, 2013 at 3:50 pm

El: “Climate change is a natural phenomenon which has been occurring since the dawn of time.”

Taylor: “Climate change is a natural part of the earth’s life.”

Natural climate change is not the issue being discussed around the world nor is it what is causing climate scientists to worry. Natural climate change has tended to happen in geological time rather than in human time. Over many thousands of years rather than a few hundred years. It is the “unnatural” climate change caused by human production of greenhouse gases, the most significant of which being carbon dioxide. Talking about “natural climate change” is a comfortable dodge, but the evidence for the increasing damage caused by human produced CO2 is available and has been publicized for decades.

There have been many popular dodges supplied by mineral exploitation institutions aimed at confusing the general public. Bogus counter statistics that show there is no global warming in the face of the evidence from over 97% of the world’s climate scientists do convince some people who don’t have an idea where the statistics come from. There are claims that global warming is caused by changes in the sun, when the current sun cycle contradicts the claims. And so on.

We must return to the subject that is under discussion, which is not natural climate change, but human induced global warming.

Taylor: “We, along with all living life can and will adapt just like we did before.”

The changes caused by human intervention are happening so quickly that adaptation is not happening in the natural world. Species are relocating further away from the equator. NSW sea species are heading south and some are now seen off Tasmania. Adaptation in this situation left unchecked is mass death. For us humans it involves the depletion of most of the natural resources we depend on throughout our culture, depletion of oil, natural gas, uranium, even copper. Without a large scale effort to build renewable energy installations we will quickly not be able to face our energy needs. Global warming will put a higher strain on our ability to produce food, which is already at a limit due to the continual increases in population. A year or two of under-production of food and we face famine as there is no leeway.

Waiting for climate change to happen and hoping to adapt is Russian roulette.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 2:58 pm

Taylor you said “The Liberal Party nor Tony Abbott nor the Abbott Government has never denied the science of climate of change.”

I beg to differ.

“The argument [behind climate change] is absolute crap. However, the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger.”
Quoted in “Town of Beaufort changed Tony Abbott’s view on climate change” in the Australian (12 December 2009)

We can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change Quoted in in the speech “A Realist’s Approach to Climate Change” (27 July 2009)

I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. Quoted on the “ABC 7.30 Report” (27 July 2009)

It seems that, notwithstanding the dramatic increases in manmade CO2 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped. Quoted in “2009 Australia’s second warmest year ever, according to Bureau of Meteorology figures” in the Herald Sun (5 January 2010)

Maurice Newman was recently appointed as chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council.

According to Newman, the current government’s two key climate science agencies – the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology – “continue to propagate the myth of anthropological climate change”, as he wrote last month in the Australian Financial Review.

Writing in The Australian newspaper in July, Newman described the science of human-caused climate change as a “smokescreen” for “vested interests” and criticised US President Barack Obama for continuing to “champion discredited research”.

In opposition, the party’s business advisory group on climate policy included two high-profile climate science sceptics in the form of business figures Hugh Morgan and Dick Warburton.

Former Liberal Senator and powerbroker Nick Minchin, an outspoken climate science denier, was key to Abbott gaining enough support to oust leader Malcolm Turnbull during a bitter leadership contest in 2009. Turnbull’s support for a carbon price was the issue that sparked the contest. Minchin once told the ABC that he believed environmentalism was a cover story for socialists to “de-industrialise the western world” (while no longer a senator, Minchin is reportedly in the running for the job of Australian Consul-General in New York).

Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews, has said the “jury is still out” on whether humans are causing climate change. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, the only woman in Abbott’s cabinet, wrote a column in 2011 in which she picked quotes from contrarian scientists to argue that climate change might not be caused by humans.

During a scorching, record-breaking heatwave earlier this year, the now Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss ridiculed the notion that heat waves and bushfires could be linked to human-caused climate change.

Employment Minister Senator Eric Abetz chose a speech to Young Liberals in South Australia last year to characterise environmental concerns over acid rain, ozone depletion, pesticide use and climate change as “Chicken Little-type hysteria”.

Not in Abbott’s cabinet is Senator Cory Bernardi, who does not believe that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming. Bernardi, who helped establish “grassroots” groups to fight Australia’s carbon price legislation, had been Abbott’s shadow parliamentary secretary until he was forced to resign last year over remarks linking same-sex marriage to bestiality.

Even Tony Abbott’s lifelong Catholic spiritual mentor, Cardinal George Pell, is a climate change sceptic. In 2004, Sydney Archbishop Pell told a Catholic business leaders summit in Florida that “some of the hysteric and extreme claims about global warming are also a symptom of pagan emptiness”. In 2011, Pell delivered a lecture for the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation which climate scientists said was ““dreadful”, “utter rubbish” and “flawed”.

Later this month, another Abbott mentor, Australia’s previous Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, will also deliver a lecture to the GWPF – titled One Religion Is Enough: How Alarmists Have Hijacked The Climate Debate

Fairfax reported on the 14th of October that the finance minister, Mathias Cormann met with Tea Party leaders and organisations, including groups that fund anti-climate misinformation campaigns, when he was shadow finance minister. Key Abbott supporter and outspoken climate skeptic Senator Cory Bernardi also went on a trip to the US, to meet with the Heartland Institute.

I could go on but that should suffice to call BS to your original statement.

spinNovember 24, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Terry, I’m amused that Penn and Teller trotted out the Time article of forty years ago that talked of an ice age. That article didn’t talk to a wide range of climate scientists of the era, for there were no articles on the subject published in scholarly journals, ie the Time article was your basic bullshit. You don’t get facts from Penn and Teller, no matter how outrageously entertaining they are. That’s the issue: they’re entertaining, not scientists. Enjoy Penn and Teller, but read what the climate scientists actually say.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2.

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Australia has taken out the Climate Action Network’s prestigious award of Colossal Fossil for 2013.

http://indymedia.org.au/2013/11/23/tony-abbotts-government-wins-colossal-fossil-award-at-un-climate-change-talks

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 3:35 pm

Terry, you have provided a link to two comedians discussing global warming. I am sorry but, whilst they may be amusing as they say “well f me” a lot, I hardly find it scientific evidence.

Regarding your reference to solar cycles, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. Studies have shown:

From 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set

While solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

While the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades:

This link provides links to about 20 peer reviewed scientific papers disproving your assertion

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Jesus ChristNovember 24, 2013 at 5:22 pm

NoTony voter would have read past the first paragraph…if that, but at least you feel better

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 4:30 pm

This thread, for me, has shown some very interesting trends.

Abbott voters (who all appear to have come from one place as they repeat the same phrases and arguments), never link to scientific evidence. They appear to get their information from journalists and radio hosts and comedians. A few of them have made good points, but they quickly retreat from debate to repetition of the mantra, still with no credible source quoted.

It seems a common belief that the 97% of scientists who are in agreement about the need for urgent action on climate change are all doing this for personal gain. In my experience, scientists would far prefer to be right than rich and will happily tear down any research that is open for criticism. On the odd occasion that a climate change denier provides a link to support their argument, you will find that the source has links to the fossil fuel industry, or at the very least, has just written a book and is doing a speaking tour to promote it. I find it bizarre that they feel the scientists have vested interests whilst ignoring the very obvious vested interest of the fossil fuel industry.

I will put out a challenge here. I would like an Abbott voter to provide a link to evidence that disproves anthropogenic global warming. Let me read where you are getting your information from. Or direct me to a link that shows how Direct Action will achieve our targets – I don’t mean the Liberal policy statement, I mean scientific studies. I would especially like to see a cost benefit analysis that shows this method will achieve the stated goals more cheaply than a carbon price.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 5:36 pm

Michael does not surprise me. They had a similar ring in each comment.

I am still disappointed. I thought at last, there are some out there, that does support Abbott, and they were taking the time to tell us why.

Why do they use the same email address. Not hard to get yourself four or five.

730reportlandNovember 24, 2013 at 5:36 pm

‘ ‘ ‘(Unfortunately I’m not at liberty to disclose who those sock puppets are).’ ‘ ‘

.
in totally unrelated news, has anybody seen iain today.?

John WardNovember 24, 2013 at 4:37 pm

As the rest of the world is getting more serious about combating climate change we’re going the other way. Ross Gittins reports.
I don’t have grandchildren but I’m hoping for some, someday, so this column is for them. I want you to know that although, in the mid-teens of this century, Australians elected a government that wasn’t genuine in its commitment to combating the effects of climate change, and that even abolished the main instrument economists invented for that purpose, I never accepted this complacency.
Partly because that government’s predecessors had done such a poor job of introducing effective measures – and even a party known as the Greens played its cards all wrong – the nation lost its resolve and allowed its original bipartisan commitment to decisive action to be lost.
The minority of people who doubted the scientists’ advice that the globe was warming combined with libertarians – who, as a matter of principle, oppose almost all arguments for intervention by government – to persuade the Liberals to break with bipartisanship.
If the Liberals under their new leader, Tony Abbott, had opposed action against climate change outright, Liberal voters who accepted the need for action would have been forced to choose between the party and their beliefs.
Instead, Abbott focused his opposition on the Labor government’s main instrument for gradually bringing about a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, an emissions trading scheme whose price would be fixed by the government for the first year or two.
Abbott insisted the Coalition remained committed to Australia’s international undertaking to reduce emissions by at least 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, and by 15 per cent or 25 per cent provided other countries were taking comparable action.
The big difference was that, rather than using Labor’s ”carbon tax” to achieve the target, the Coalition would rely on ”direct action”, such as offering monetary incentives to farmers and others to reduce emissions.
This left Abbott free to run an almighty scare campaign about how Labor’s ”great big new tax on everything” would greatly increase the cost of living for ordinary Australian families and impose big costs on Australian businesses, which would impair their ability to compete.
Abbott associated with outright climate-change deniers and said things that seemed to brand him as one of them, while always adding, sotto voce, that he accepted human-caused climate change and the need to do something about it.
Apart from attracting voters away from Labor and its frightening carbon tax, the result of making climate change an issue of party dispute was to give Liberal supporters a licence to stop worrying about climate change – if the leaders of my party aren’t worrying, why should I? – while providing a fig leaf for those Liberals who retained their concern.
The business lobby groups’ initial position had been: if it’s inevitable we do something, let’s get on with it and make future arrangements as certain as possible. But with their side of politics inviting them to put their short-term interests ahead of the economy’s long-term health, most business people found it too tempting to resist.
To be fair, some businesses stuck with their schemes to reduce their own emissions and some pressed on with repositioning their business for a world where the use of fossil fuels had become prohibitively expensive as well as socially disapproved of.
You will find this hard to believe, but in the mid-teens, it was still common to think about ”the economy” in isolation from the natural environment which sustained it. Economists, business people and politicians had gone for two centuries largely ignoring the damage economic activity did to the environment.
The idea that, eventually, the environment would hit back and do great damage to the economy was one most people preferred not to think about. At the time, it was fashionable to bewail the lack of action to increase the economy’s productivity. Few people joined dots to realise the climate was in the process of dealing a blow to our productivity, one that would significantly reduce the next generation’s living standards.
At the time, we rationalised our selfishness – our willingness to avoid a tiny drop in our standard of living at the expense of a big drop in our offspring’s – by telling ourselves half-truths and untruths about the global nature of climate change.
We told ourselves there was nothing Australia could do by itself to affect climate change (true), that at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, countries had failed to reach a binding agreement on action to reduce emissions (true) and that the world’s two biggest polluters, China and the US, were doing nothing much to reduce their emissions.
We had no excuse for not knowing this was untrue because successive government reports told us the contrary. One we got just before the carbon tax was abolished, from the Climate Change Authority, said the two superpowers were stepping up their actions to reduce emissions. ”These measures could have a significant impact on global emissions reductions,” it concluded.
I recount this history to explain how my generation’s dereliction occurred, not to defend or justify it. We knew what we should have done; we chose not to do it. I never fell for any of these spurious arguments.
Did I ever doubt that climate change represented by far the greatest threat to Australia’s future economic prosperity? Never. Should I have said this more often, rather than chasing a thousand economic will-o’-the-wisps? Yes.
Ross Gittins is the economics editor.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-dear-grandchildren-i-can-only-say-sorry-20131119-2xt90.html#ixzz2l9tf2B8B

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 5:37 pm

Which Iain?

Möbius EckoNovember 24, 2013 at 5:39 pm

I’ll drop a little point of contention to the term “sock puppet” as it’s now being used as a person using multiple aliases to post was not a sock puppet in the original meaning of it. I changed from Adrian of Nowra to Möbius Ecko without telling anyone I had changed. Someone picked up my style and “outed” me, accusing me of being a sock puppet. I pointed to the narrower definition at the time and said I wasn’t.

The original online socket puppet was someone who would post under different aliases but take up different positions in the argument, even arguing between their aliases. They would make one side sound unreasonable and radical, spouting nonsense whilst the side of the argument they really wanted to take alias was reasonable and lucid. This is the current Wikipedia entry giving the original and now broader explanation.

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term—a reference to the manipulation of a simple hand puppet made from a sock—originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an internet community who spoke to, or about, himself while pretending to be another person.[1] The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization,[2] or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. A significant difference between the use of a pseudonym[3] and the creation of a sockpuppet is that the sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer.

sorry to go off track.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 5:42 pm

Mobius, if one accepts your definition, and they are seeking to deceive, why cannot they be exposed?

John WardNovember 24, 2013 at 4:42 pm

The idea that a mandate abolishes opposition is totalitarian by definition…….

Mr Abbott, did say“no surprises” so over time we have been warned. He says these are precisely targeted, but nothing about collateral damage.

Lower the tax-free threshold from $18,200 back to $6000. This will drag more than one million low-income earners back into the tax system. It will also increase the taxes for 6 million Australians earning less than $80,000. Thereby;

Saving families $300 dollars a year of Carbon Tax and costing them $2,300 per year in reinstated tax.

John WardNovember 24, 2013 at 4:42 pm

Too little attention is given to the long standing complicity between A.S.I.O., and leading Liberal Ministers from Holt to Greenwood to deploy “Captive nations” organisations which arose in the early 1950′s were largely under the captive leadership of former Nazis who owed their “respectability” to the silence of AS.I.O. and “understanding” anti-Communist politicians and senior public servants.

The other weakness concerns the failure to examine the relationship between the Nazi “ethnic leaders”, AS.I.O., the National Civic Council and the Democratic Labor Party. It is simplistic to assume that BA. Santamaria and the DLP leadership knew nothing of these ethnic leaders’ war activities. Their fervent anti-communism and anti-semitism may have been welcomed by the clerico-fascists.

How could Santamaria with his strong connections with AS.I.O. not be aware of the Nazi leadership of “Captive Nations”? Moreover, Aarons tells us nothing about the way these war criminals exercised their influence over their compatriots in the trade unions.

For example, it would be of some historical importance to know what pressure these Nazis were able to exert over migrant workers in the Federated Ironworkers’ Association to maintain the long career of its leading right-wing official, Laurie Short.

The unhealed wounds of Europe under fascism and the secrecy of Australian anti-communism remain today.

We are still moving to the right as Corporations begin to define government policy.
Remember this. Former CIA officer Victor Marchetti confirmed that the CIA had funded both of the major opposition parties and that the Liberals had been receiving CIA funds since the late 1960s.

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/14342723894/My-Enemys-Enemy

The latest ‘refugees’ lack White skin and Blue eyes.

My father along with the Ninth Division fought these Nazi bastards to a standstill in Tobruk and El-Alamein. He came back a wreck and then our Governments let the CIA, ASIO and MI5 dictate our refugee policy. There by pissing on the graves of Australians in North Africa. The Children of those Nazis have too much to say about our national politics and in ASIO itself.

The Nazis were co-opted by the CIA to advise on defeating world communism and so led the Cold war and maintained their own relevance.

Trouble with that is they went underground, mostly in the intelligence communities and the conservative parties, mainly because they see unions as communists.

A few short years after 1945, maybe 3, the Nazis of the Third Reich simple melted into the landscape like a fiction novel of the 60’s.
I believe they have change Australia forever and people like Pauline Hansen has ensured they feel encouraged to promote more right wing views.

To think we fought a war to put an end to these people. It is terrible to think our leaders of both wartime parties betrayed PBI’s (Poor Bloody Infantrymen), the poor sods on the ground and then kept this rotten secret from us, the children of those long dead mugs.

730reportlandNovember 24, 2013 at 5:53 pm

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘discuss the conservative view.’ ‘ ‘ ‘
Sorry folks, that no longer exists.
What you now have, as far as `parties` go, is the loonie, loonie teabags.

AdamNovember 24, 2013 at 5:55 pm

Kaye, there is more here than I have time to read through.

Your last reply to me was that the economic Armageddon predicted by some as a result of the carbon tax hasn’t happened, and I would agree. Many of the claims made were disingenuous…exaggerated, or just lies.

But you then say ” the economy is growing. Is there a problem?” And I say yes. It’s the whole thing of the two speed economy. But, as with climate change, the damage being done by the tax won’t be obvious to all till it is too late.

DCNovember 24, 2013 at 6:08 pm

Adam, what about the damage done by income tax, company tax or the GST?.. you know, those other taxes that get to be reduced when you include carbon pricing as an additional way for the government to raise revenue?

Why does it make sense to you that these taxes remain in order to allow CO2 emissions to be free of charge, especially when abating said CO2 emissions will then require more government funding paid for by the same type of taxes.

I honestly believe that a better way to run the economy would be to all but eliminate any type of tax that is not linked to unsustainable consumption. Whey only tax people for earning? income produces a disincentive to work, company tax produces a disincentive to take a risk to earn a profit, we accept these disincentives because we want our government to fund roads, schools, hospitals etc, why not shift the burden onto the types of extraction/consumption that we would like to see rationed?

DCNovember 24, 2013 at 6:10 pm

*Why not Whey

DCNovember 24, 2013 at 6:12 pm

*Income TAX produces a disincentive to work

sorry I should read what I write before I post

Michael TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 5:23 pm

Kaye Lee, you might be interested to learn that a large number of those ‘people’ who confronted you are actually the same person. This person has used five bogus names who have more or less said the same thing.

So whilst it may appear that the right-wingers have come out of the woodwork to debate the issue, they in fact haven’t. It’s an old right-winger’s ploy to use what are called ‘sock puppets’ (false identities) to make it look as though they have strength in numbers.

The good thing, for you, is that you haven’t really come under fire from a large number of people. It just appears that way.

(Unfortunately I’m not at liberty to disclose who those sock puppets are).

Why am I telling you this? I don’t want you to be discouraged by what you may have thought was a concerted attack upon you. It isn’t. It’s just the same person saying the same stuff under the guise of a number of sock puppets.

DCNovember 24, 2013 at 6:29 pm

Carbon pricing whether it be fixed (so called carbon tax) or floating (ETS) allows the democratically elected government to control national CO2 emission levels, and reduce other types of taxes. Why not pursue carbon pricing more aggressively with much higher prices on CO2 emissions which raise enough funds to significantly reduce the need for (income tax, company tax or the GST) and also provide further assistance to any trade exposed industry?

The carbon pricing would raise enough revenue to do all of this and THE ECONOMY WOULD NOT FEEL ANY MORE PAIN THAN WHAT THEY ALREADY FROM INCOME TAXES, COMPANY TAXES & GST.

This would continue until such time as local renewable energy started to take market share away from our biggest polluters (coal fired power stations) and when that market share gets taken by companies who produce clean energy, only then would the government have to start to look at once again raising income tax, company tax, or the GST.

All of this can happen with a price on carbon without any overall increase to taxation and without any harm done to trade exposed industry.

TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 6:35 pm

Did you ever stop to think that when one volcano erupts more carbon is released into the atmosphere than all of human civilisation has released over its entire existence? This is just carbon I’m talking about as well. I’m yet to mention sulphur monoxide and sulphur dioxide as well as carbon monoxide.

If climate change is measured in human years, then why has there been no significant change in global temperature in the last 16 years?

As for your final point, the fact that these animals are moving shows that they’re adapting.

How is a toxic tax on homes and businesses going to fix this though?

The answer is that it isn’t. Socialists have taken advantage of the climate change scare, which should be well over now, and have used environmentalism as a cloak. The carbon tax is socialism masquerading as environmentalism and therefore it must be stopped.

The Abbott Government has told the UN that Australia will not accept socialism masquerading as environmentalism and our Party made a clear promise before the election that we would axe the tax. We are keeping that promise. We are not replacing it with an ETS, we are not floating the carbon price, we are going to axe the tax so that is gone completely. We will axe Labor’s toxic tax.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Kaye, the two speed economy was here, long before the so called carbon tax eventuated.

I thought it was bought about high mineral income, that led to a high dollar, that bough about a decrease in manufacturing.

Yes that MRRT or similar tax should have been in operation much earlier when there were super profits.

It does not make sense to do away with the MRRT. Yes, there is a need to re-look at it, to make it more efficient.

Kaye, you are correct, when you said the effect on the economy is many times less that what occurred when the GST was introduced.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 5:47 pm

That is disappointing Michael. Don’t worry about me feeling attacked. I ignore silliness. The disappointing part is that I had hoped we might finally have found some people prepared to discuss the conservative view.

DCNovember 24, 2013 at 6:51 pm

Taylor, if the world’s best brains in the field of climatology and related disciplines have somehow “forgot” to consider the impact of volcanoes then you’s better be quick and write your own scientific report about it. You will turn the science world upside down and your name will live on though out the ages of our perfectly rosy future where we will continue to burn all the coal for hundreds of more years without any consequences whatsoever. Thanks Taylor I feel so relieved now. Like after taking a huge dump! Stupid scientists, bloody idiots forgot about volcanoes and got me all worried for nothing

730reportlandNovember 24, 2013 at 6:57 pm

One side fights using junk-science, the other side fights using junk-politics.

Michael TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 6:11 pm

The disappointing part is that I had hoped we might finally have found some people prepared to discuss the conservative view.

I’m not saying they were all the same person, just five of them were. Some did come here to genuinely debate the topic and that has been appreciated.

730reportlandNovember 24, 2013 at 7:14 pm

Both sides don`t operate with-in the realm of reality. The Deniers are running with junk-science.

The carbon-tax/derivative won`t do anything for the environment. lt can`t. We export twice as much coal and we burn/use. This is junk-politics.

They will continue to dig up more coal, the larger part for export, and it will keep growing.

khtaghNovember 24, 2013 at 7:21 pm

Another great read Victoria.
People just don’t realise how precarious the position is globally, so many people think we have time to fix this problem. If it were the only problem we had to deal with we would still be pushing shit up hill with a pointy stick to fix it.
This moronic idea we will adapt is just so not true, even us humans will have trouble doing so, plants & animals simply won’t. Bees are a true CRITICAL keystone species & we are only yrs away (not decades) from seeing them vanish, in the last 2 yrs the USA has lost 1/3 of its bees/yr, last month one bee keeper in Canada lost 37 million!!!! bees in one event. Japan has already started to hand pollinate their cherries due to loss of bees.
If we lose bees say goodbye to 75-80%(or more) of our global food crops(virtually overnight), no fruit, no veggies, no nuts (other than Liberals) no chance of adapting at all!. We are on the edge & people are still arguing over if the edge even exists. When & if we wake up to how serious the situation we are in is, all these people that follow the Liberal line & vote for them will just swap camps like they always do & claim that it was everyone else that did nothing till it was too late. I have already noticed people that voted Liberal denying that they did so, own your vote!, remember who they are & throw it back in their faces.
Please forget this delusion that we have time to debate this problem, we don’t its here its happening & it is serious, it is not just about temperatures & weather, it is all the interconnected systems that we are totally ignoring, they are our life support systems!. As David Suzuki says, without clean, air, food & water, you die, pretty simple.
Trouble is you won’t read about it in this country as Murdoch doesn’t want to spook the natives, & tell us just how bad things are. We should be screaming at the international criminal court to have people like Murdoch & the industrial moguls like Gina charged with crimes against humanity, before! its too late, my money is on the fact it is already to late. I give us 20yrs at the outside, climate changes is starting to slide into a methane positive feed back cycle, a one way trip to climate oblivion in not hundreds of yrs, but decades.

cornlegendNovember 24, 2013 at 6:22 pm

Victoria, A great article as always.
Kaye Lee, Keep sticking it to them.
Good to see some right wing nutter has to use five different aliases to try to get around you.
Don’t worry, you eat these fools up and spit them out.
Its always good to see the Women of calibre out opposing the crap of the Abbott-Murdoch Government and their rancid right wing crowd

J.November 24, 2013 at 7:26 pm

I have been debating whether or not to comment on here since I saw this and the persistence of liberal voters embarrassing themselves has really encouraged me to contribute to this discussion. I have seen this multiple times and still no one has addressed it, but what about all of the liberal voters who made their decision on factors other than climate change? This article is completely offensive to these people. The day the only thing separating two major political parties is one issue, is really a poor day for people wanting a change for their country.

I am one of those people, I personally do not place climate change at the top of my priorities list, though I do acknowledge it is a legitimate issue, I also don’t believe that the carbon tax was the greatest policy. I did happen to benefit from the increase in the tax-free threshold that resulted which puts me in a strange position. The future of Australia’s economy relies on foreign investment, our mining industries are sure to decline in the near future and something like the carbon tax can act as a disincentive to foreign corporations. I personally have always believed in positive reinforcement and there are other ways of encouraging responsible industries like government subsidies on carbon reducing behaviour. Developing cleaner energy and more widespread, environmentally friendly transportation are other ways of combatting climate change that I personally believe in.

In complete honesty, I have very little respect for people that deny climate change as it is clearly an issue we need to face, but I have almost as little respect for people that chastise Abbott voters for something they may not have even done. Feel free to post links on why punitive methods are more effective than positive methods and I will in most likelihood not read them, not because I am not interested in the most efficient way, but because I have more important things to do with my time than keep reading and replying to comments on an article that won’t even be relevant until the next election. I have enough time to write one comment because so many liberal commenters were irritating me, but that is probably all.

I do recognise some hypocrisy in me acknowledging climate change but choosing a denier of climate change instead of a policy i think would be effective but not preferable. I hope that down the line, the government reconsiders its stance on climate change and implements policies more preferable to me, compared to the Labor government most definitely moving forward with a policy I am not a fan of.

Oh and my main reason behind voting liberal was just the terrible shape of the Labor party and my utter disdain for how the NBN has been handled. PEACE!

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 6:32 pm

Adam, I appreciate your comments and your willingness to discuss them.

My understanding is that the two speed economy has arisen because of the resources boom, not the carbon tax. I don’t understand the connection? Can you explain how you feel the carbon tax has been harmful and why Direct Action would be better?

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 24, 2013 at 7:36 pm

And Taylor, you’re either a paid stooge, or you’re doing it for free.
Which makes you an even bigger idiot than you appear.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 6:44 pm

I believe Tony Abbott has duped the public and it is HIM rather than the people who voted for him that I am angry with. People should be able to trust they are being told the truth but stories like the following abound when we are talking Tony.

“Opposition Leader Tony Abbott made a frosty mistake in visiting the Adelaide Ice Service factory today, arguing the business was a victim of the carbon tax. At the same time Climate Change Minister Greg Combet and local Labor MP Mark Butler announced a grant of nearly $90,000 to the company from the carbon price funded Clean Technology Food and Foundries Program to install a 87.5 kilowatt photovoltaic solar system at its ice manufacturing plant in Regency Park.

The visit continues Abbott’s attempt to beat up the carbon price as a negative, but it shows just how shallow and loose with the truth his own campaign is, especially regarding climate change policy. The carbon price hasn’t brought economic ruin. Indeed, there are strong arguments by Environment Victoria that the compensation package to carbon intense energy providers is overly generous. Victoria’s brown coal generators are being subsidised to continue polluting to maintain healthy profits.

Tony Abbott is also wrong on electricity prices going up due to the carbon price. Most of the price rises in electricity are due to power distribution companies investing in upgrading network transmission equipment for the electricity network.”

http://indymedia.org.au/2013/04/27/carbon-price-funding-solar-pv-for-adelaide-factory-puts-tony-abbott-on-ice

DCNovember 24, 2013 at 7:45 pm

J. Sorry to sound rude but let me get this straight – you were debating whether or not to comment on this site and you just wanted to say that some Abbott voters like yourself do believe in climate change but don’t think it is that important and you voted Liberal based on their NBN policy?

I just don’t get how you can accept the science of climate change and then downgrade it to being not that big a deal.

Just reminds me of the saying – better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 6:50 pm

Taylor, your arguments have ALL been refuted by many scientific papers. Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. You really need to question wherever you are getting your info from because they are telling you crap.

“The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes.”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Michael TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 6:52 pm

Taylor, in regards to the volcanoes is it possible you heard that from Alan Jones?

BTW, I like your name. 🙂

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 6:53 pm

“If climate change is measured in human years, then why has there been no significant change in global temperature in the last 16 years? ”

The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 – global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 7:55 pm

” but what about all of the liberal voters who made their decision on factors other than climate change? This article is completely offensive to these people. The day the only thing separating two major political parties is one issue, is really a poor day for people wanting a change for their country.”

Maybe the embarrassment comes from Mr. Abbott spouting that voting for him was a referendum on the so called toxic carbon tax.

Maybe it is time for Abbott’s supporters to say why they voted for him.

That is a question we have been asking for ages. Not having an answer does frustrate us a little.

I personally believe that the tax has little to do with their voter. I would not even be surprise if they gave it a though, one way or another.

I suspect it was more a protest vote against the behavior of Labor. That little though was given top what Abbott was saying or promising.

I do not believe that many believed, that Abbott would set out to dismantle everything Labor has done over the last six years.

Maybe it is time, for those who support Abbott to let him know why they voted the way they did.

Much of what Labor achieved is good, and deserves to survive.

In spite of all the in fighting in Labor, they did manage good governance. Hard to believe I know.

Fed upNovember 24, 2013 at 8:00 pm

I have little concern about how NBN was handled.

If that worries those who voted against labor, maybe the answer lies in improving on the methods Labor used,

Not dismantling what has been done and replacing it with an inferior scheme.

Same goes for the MRRT.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 7:03 pm

730 I am trying to use truth, not junk politics or junk science. This is too important to play games with.

ChrisNovember 24, 2013 at 8:13 pm

Thats all well and good but I dont think that name calling, blanket stereotyping, and generalised accusations are the way to earn respect in a political debate. Or any adult debate for that matter. Im sorry, I didnt read to the end after I got sick of your lack of real arguing skills.

AdamNovember 24, 2013 at 8:16 pm

Hi Kaye,

the connection between carbon tax and two speed economy…

First, repeating I am not supporting direct action. Rejecting the carbon tax is not the same as supporting direct action. Voting for Abbott is not the same as supporting direct action.

The two speed economy is all about our struggle to compete in many industries. We are getting so much cash from mining that we can overlook that other stuff now, but mining booms end.

When that happens, we will need those other industries. If we have not been competitive, then they will be gone, we will suffer.

You might say who cares? We are rolling in money, save some and use it then. But the point of the carbon tax is to be a disincentive for pollution. If all it does is push industry to places where they don’t limit pollution (because they are cost effective) then it harms our industry and doesn’t help the environment.

This is why I think Rudd had the right approach. Globally agreed action keeps the relative competitiveness of economies intact.

Now I may be wrong, the carbon tax may be the answer. But remember this blog started with all sorts of accusations levelled against those of us who voted for Abbott. I am explaining why I dismissed both sides policies on this issue, and voted on other issues.

Sadly, the comments today appear to have descended mostly into the usual name calling on both sides. It seems we struggle as a society to discuss these issues in a mature and rational way, with respect for those who hold contrary points of view.

My time is valuable, this will be my last post on this blog. I hope I have made a contribution to people thinking about this issue.

And Kaye, while I don’t agree with you, I have appreciated the discussion. I do see logic to some of what you say. Who knows, maybe you are right and I am not.

Robert KleissNovember 24, 2013 at 8:21 pm

Seriously, why cann’t all you people start a party that will protect the environment, balance the budget, allow people to fish, hunt, ride motorcyles, drive four wheel drives and stop worrying if their industries will be closed down and their jobs sent over seas. I promise I will never vote liberal again
Robert kleiss

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 7:31 pm

I do understand about our exports and how we conveniently don’t include them in our carbon emissions but, increasingly action is being taken worldwide. China, the destination for much of our exports, is stepping up to the plate just as we are forfeiting. It requires global co-operation.

The carbon tax not only assisted in changing behaviour, it also provided funding for the development of renewable energy. It also encouraged companies to do the R&D into sustainable practice. For all of these reasons and more, I believe the carbon price was doing it’s job.

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 24, 2013 at 7:32 pm

Thank you J. for your honest and alternative viewpoint. I’d be interested in your comments on this one.

Kaye LeeNovember 24, 2013 at 7:49 pm

J, to say climate change isn’t relevant until the next election is, to me, not acceptable. Tony Abbott has shown many times that he will do complete backflips if he thinks it is in his interest in gaining popular approval – PPL, Gonski, NDIS, are three recent examples of this. If enough pressure is brought to bare, both domestically and internationally, then we may be able to force him to take some action.

It is a real shame that so many people voted against Labor for the internal squabbles so religiously speculated upon and chronicled by the Murdoch press. Did it stop them from governing? No. Did it distract the electorate from issues of importance? Yes.

As far as the NBN is concerned, I assume you feel the Coalition will do a better job. That seems highly unlikely at this stage as, to erect the 60,000 nodes necessary takes over 57 a day, 7 days a week, for three years. As we have just sacked the whole board, and commissioned new reviews, Malcolm’s 2016 deadline is not looking good.

Add the following to that and then ask yourself what you voted for again.

In his inaugural appearance at a senate estimates hearing, NBN Co executive chair (and former head of Telstra) Ziggy Switkowski has said Telstra’s copper network is ‘robust’ and has defended his decision to hire a number of ex-Telstra executives.

“Clearly I don’t have recent Telstra information except anecdotal material, and my feeling is the network in 2013, the fault rate might be higher than it was in the time I was at Telstra, but perhaps not materially higher and hard to disengage from weather patterns. Fault rates in the early part of the last decade were lower because it was drier. When it gets wetter, that exposes the copper to some extent.

“As best as I can tell, the copper network continues to perform robustly and without knowing the number, Telstra must have millions of broadband customers using ADSL on copper delivering speeds of up to 10Mbps.”

Switkowski said that the concerns expressed about the network not being up to being the basis for a FttN NBN were “misinformed”.

http://www.zdnet.com/au/nbn-cos-switkowski-defends-robust-copper-network-telstra-hires-7000023395/

Telstra’s copper is ‘nearly beyond repair’ and ‘an absolute disgrace’: union

http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/government-it/telstras-copper-is-nearly-beyond-repair-and-an-absolute-disgrace-union-20131120-hv3mp.html

Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull will appoint one of the fiercest critics of Labor’s national broadband network to his expert panel overseeing a cost-benefit analysis of the NBN, a leaked press release reveals.

The draft document, dated “xx November 2013”, states that Mr Turnbull will announce a three-person panel to “analyse the economic and social costs and benefits arising from the availability of broadband of differing properties via various technologies”.

Mr Turnbull plans to appoint economist and columnist for The Australian Henry Ergas as a panel member.
Professor Ergas has been one of the fiercest critics of the previous Labor government’s plans to spend $37.4 billion running fibre to the front doors of homes and businesses across Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-to-include-labor-critic-on-nbn-panel-20131120-2xuqu.html#ixzz2lA54es8d

StevoNovember 24, 2013 at 9:10 pm

A great laugh reading throughout. My decision to vote Liberal vindicated.
Thank you!

TaylorNovember 24, 2013 at 9:14 pm

The Abbott Government will not do that because that is a method of socialism.

bighead1883November 24, 2013 at 11:03 pm

Well Tony Abbott did consult with Big George Pell and was told that his DAP was as good as Dial A Prayer.
Well BigG that`s good enough for me.

The DogNovember 25, 2013 at 12:10 am

No matter what your views on climate change are, we shouldn’t shit in our own nest. It’s just common sense…. and that seems to be whats missing in all of the debates 🙁

FredNovember 25, 2013 at 4:19 am

When and if the Carbon Tax is repealed do people really think that Electricity companies are not going to keep putting up prices every year anyway. You would have to be naive to think so sweetly about such exploitative companies.

FredNovember 25, 2013 at 4:23 am

I agree with your post Victoria. Abbott voters should be ashamed.

Möbius EckoNovember 25, 2013 at 7:10 am

No Taylor, DAP is a socialist policy by every definition including big government oversight and control. ETS is a market mechanism, that is capitalism, not socialism.

Please at least read up and do some basic research before making posts on a subject such as this.

OzFenricNovember 25, 2013 at 8:48 am

In the most recent Neilsen poll, only 12% of those polled supported the Direct Action Plan. Seems to me there are a number of possible reasons for this. 1. Nobody knows anything about it; 2. People who appreciate the challenge we face and the relative merits of DAP (as much as has been revealed) and ETS automatically discount DAP as critically under-scoped and under-funded; and 3. People who don’t believe that climate change is real, caused by humans, and/or capable of being addressed, therefore feel that DAP is a waste of money.
It’s my contention that the Coalition will aim to get some form of DAP up and running, but not care too much about its eventual form because they don’t expect it to be successful.

TaylorNovember 25, 2013 at 9:01 am

Well I know that I for one am well aware of what Direct Action is about. Direct Action involves the complete abolition of the carbon tax for starters. From there incentives will be given to businesses who do not pollute and make a move towards green energy. On top of that a 12,000 strong Green Army will be assembled which will go throughout the country cleaning up the environment and planting trees.

OzFenricNovember 25, 2013 at 9:46 am

Taylor, thank you. Those sound like eminently respectable policies. In conjunction with an ETS, I don’t have a problem with the implementation of DAP. There are only a couple of issues to face, primarily that (as Kaye has previously pointed out, with authoritative references) there is no way that the DAP can, under the current budget expectations, meet even the very modest targets of 5% reductions from 2000 levels. There are concerns about the way that businesses will be selected for DAP largesse – history has shown that such programs in other jurisdictions have proven extremely partisan and wasteful. Even if it could be successful, direct subsidies are calculated to have the highest effective per-unit cost on carbon reductions of the six methodologies analysed (http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/abbotts-direct-action-climate-policy-draws-more-flak-20131105-2wyky.html).

Regarding the Green Army, calculations have been made as to the amount of trees, land and resources required to meet the stated targets. See, for example, http://theconversation.com/will-the-oppositions-direct-action-plan-work-12309 (I know that The Conversation is not a particularly unbiased medium, but these are becoming increasingly hard to find. Regardless, the mathematics do not lie. Alternatively, try http://www.basscoastpost.com/to-sum-up-its-just-hot-air.html). In order to meet the targets, it will be necessary to plant 15 billion trees, requiring between two and four hundred thousand square kilometres of land. When I did this calculation, I was using the figure of 15,000 members of the “Green Army”, not 12,000, but even at 15k that’s more than 25 square kilometres of land each, planting 100,000 trees in each km^2. Does this sound like a serious policy to you?

Whatever you might think about an ETS – which is a separate, if related, issue to the DAP and the “Green Army” – the Direct Action Plan is not, never has been, and is not feasible as, an effective alternative.

Dan RowdenNovember 25, 2013 at 9:55 am

From there incentives will be given to businesses who do not pollute and make a move towards green energy.

Artificial manipulation of the market – for any reason – by a Government is socialism. Is the Green Army going to be funded and run by the private sector? Can we please just drop the utterly vacuous notion that what Labor plans to do is socialism and what the Coalition plans isn’t? Can we? You know, just for the sake of sanity, like…

OzFenricNovember 25, 2013 at 10:03 am

Erratum on my previous comment – it’s not an “eminently respectable policy” to “complete[ly abolish] the carbon tax”. Not that such a thing ever really existed, but the thing that it actually was, an Emissions Trading Scheme, is, as per my comment, the number-one, cheaper-by-orders-of-magnitude, recommended by economists and climate scientists everywhere, method to achieve carbon emissions reductions. That is all.

Dan RowdenNovember 25, 2013 at 10:33 am

What Kaye Lee said …

Dan RowdenNovember 25, 2013 at 10:40 am

It’s funny, really, that those who rail against “socialism” or welfare never seem to take into account the various ways in which they directly benefit from government social services. But then, I suppose they would pay full price for their prescriptions, as a matter of principle, if the pharmacy would only let them. Damned commo chemists!

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 11:03 am

I would like to point out, that CEF suite of bills is a strong incentive for those who are big emitters of carbon dioxide to clean up their act.

Yes, if one pollutes, one pays.

Nothing fairer than that.

We do not allow any industry to pollute our land. Well at least we try to stop them.

Why should the emittance of carbon dioxide be seen as any difference.

The world will only survive, without the burning of fossil fuels. No need for the present situation to continue.

Time for the coal burning industries to fo the way of the horse and cart.

It is called progress.

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 10:11 am

The 15000 strong Green Army has funding of 50 million allocated in Mr Hockey’s costings. That amounts to $64 a week each for all costs – equipment, transport, administration, trees, any form of payment to these green soldiers and their supervisors.

As with the one million allocated for our Commission of Audit, this is a ridiculous token sum that will achieve nothing.

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 11:19 am

“Fundamental deceptions damage the public’s ability to maintain a rational view of the world. Once a basic untruth is rooted, it blurs a society’s perception of reality and, consequently, the intelligence with which society reacts to events.”- Ben H. Bagdikian, The New Media Monopoly

“The worst forms of tyranny, or certainly the most successful ones, are not those we rail against but those that so insinuate themselves into the imagery of our consciousness, and the fabric of our lives, as not to be perceived as tyranny” Michael Parenti

“When faced with a choice between confronting an unpleasant reality and defending a set of comforting and socially accepted beliefs, most people choose the later course.” W. Lance Bennett.

“… man’s capacity to forget is unlimited.”- Jacques Ellul, Propaganda

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 11:20 am

““… man’s capacity to forget is unlimited.”- Jacques Ellul, Propaganda”

Would love to add, also to see.

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 10:30 am

Taylor you seem to have an irrational fear of socialism. Does that mean that you refuse to use Medicare or the PBS or public schools and hospitals? I assume you would have nothing to do with an old age pension or Newstart or a disability pension. You must be absolutely fuming about Tony’s Paid Parental Leave scheme – welfare on steroids, not to mention rejecting a market based ETS for a socialist DAP.

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 10:46 am

Never fear Dan, the free trade agreements will put pay to that socialist subsidised system that restricts the profits of the poor pharmaceutical companies.

TerryNovember 25, 2013 at 12:00 pm

Kaye Lee,
There is as much evidence against the science as there is for the science; if you’d spent as much time looking at BOTH sides of the arguments, then you would find just as much evidence to go against all your links and theories.

With the advent of the earth having already been here for billions of years and going through a series of extreme weather events, at times catastrophic, I’m going to go with the fact that it’s going to continue doing so, long after we are gone.

This is what you don’t understand: EVERYONE wants to earth to be looked after. We ALL want electric cars, less pollution. more environmentally friendly approaches. Where the argument falls over, is all the finger blaming and shaming and extremism, which people like not only yourself, but in particular, the original poster of this article, constantly display.

Ask ANYONE on the street and they will tell you that we need to look after the earth better.

But this scare mongering and this whole ‘We won’t leave anything for our children’ garbage, is both rubbish and pathetic, and just downright arrogant. I mean, are you seriously that deluded that you think that the planet will be uninhabitable for the next generation? If that’s not over exaggerating something to support your own claims, I don’t know what it.

For your reading pleasure, because we know how much you love a good link:

http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/55341

And now after reading, you can retort with your own claims that the sun doesn’t affect earth as much as your cronie well paid scientists say it does.

Yeah. The sun, the largest star in our solar system which has warmed and cooled the earth ever since it’s existence, is truly an insignificant matter when it comes to the earth’s temperature.

I’m done here. Nothing has been achieved other than the same as always has before; You guys start off by calling us idiots because we don’t believe in our extremism, and us saying that we do believe in change, just not your bull crap fear mongering, which is as good as any Murdoch newspaper. If you never need a job, you should call the Telegraph; they’d like your level of over exaggeration.

Dan RowdenNovember 25, 2013 at 12:15 pm

Terry,

Yeah. The sun, the largest star in our solar system which has warmed and cooled the earth ever since it’s existence,

A statement such as this disqualifies you as a person able to make any form of scientific observation or engage in any meaningful scientific commentary. I’m sorry, but it just does.

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 12:16 pm

I suspect whatever happens this week in regard with Abbot’;s relationship with Indonesia, the gloves will be off in the way they treat him.

No longer will we see them being diplomatic. They will challenge this government on every false statement they make.

I cannot see Indonesia, conducting any action or agreement made by Abbott and Morrison, behind closed doors. They will demand all occurs in open.

Why should they not. Recent history has shown, that as far as that country is concerned, they cannot trust our government.

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 12:17 pm

Terry, I have looked at both sides. Every time one takes the time to analyses what those against the science have to say, they are found wanting.

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 12:21 pm

Shorten now on. O)f course the ABC is having trouble keeping the show going.

OzFenricNovember 25, 2013 at 12:36 pm

Terry, if you truly are done here then I am sorry to see you go; people like you, with your misled concepts of science, are the problem we face and it’s sad that evidence and logic are unable to correct you. In case you’re still reading, then:

– Nobody denies that the sun has an effect on the planet’s energy inputs. In fact, no serious scientist is going to argue that the extent of solar energy input varies. Currently, the sun is in a cooling phase (since 1978 – see http://www.skepticalscience.com/acrim-pmod-sun-getting-hotter.htm); if it were the only, primary or even a largely significant driver of climate change we would not have seen the record-breaking warming of the past six years.

– We are not leaving anything for our children. Period. A cursory investigation of current climate science shows that the planet is tending well above worst-case scenarios in all current models, that these models deliberately underestimate the devastation that climate change will cause to global environments and human populations, and that climate scientists are kept awake at night for dread of what’s coming. These scientists would love to be proved wrong. Moreover, they would love to be able to prove the science wrong. Why? Because it would give them something to look forward to. And because it would give them an automatic Nobel prize, global fame, and probably never need to work again in their lives. Those money-grubbing scientists surely wouldn’t pass that up.

– You call it scaremongering and extremism. Perhaps it is. The dispassionate arguments and carefully worded policy suggestions were what climate scientists were using twenty years ago, when we still had twenty years to try and fix things. Conservatives and skeptics didn’t listen then. The message is getting louder and more desperate because it’s already too late to prevent the disaster, it’s almost too late to *survive* the disaster, and still there are people like your good self who deny the evidence that there even is a disaster.

– “I mean, are you seriously that deluded that you think that the planet will be uninhabitable for the next generation?” – Climate scientists – serious, senior climate scientists, with fifty years of experience and no immediate profit motive to grind – do actually think that large parts of the world will be uninhabitable within a generation. Governmental agencies with responsibility for urban planning are factoring it in to their plans. Insurance companies no longer insure in parts of the world because of the increased certainty of disaster. Defence departments in the US and Europe are planning for a future where climate-driven wars – based on an inability to grow food – and climate refugees are a daily part of life. If you can deny that the world is already becoming unfriendly for humans in many areas, then there is little hope for you.

Scientists who claim this is the end of the human race are actually fairly rare. Much closer to consensus is the possibility of weaning back human populations from 9 billion to perhaps under 1 billion. Believe it or not, that can’t be done without impacting on modern western lifestyles. If you think this science is deluded or arrogant, please point to serious scientific literature that explains why.

bill deanNovember 25, 2013 at 12:44 pm

The worrying concern is theres inadequete foundation on both sides , and a failure of adapting to conditions like our ancesters did of old , ….mankind you have lost that fundamental ability of survival, that of adapting to changing conditions , circumstances that confront you.
On one hand we have a group who cannot even consider let alone see the trouble before them , on the other hand is a group who cant seem to drop the venom and stick to the facts ….which one is which is the only adaption going on here……

The water systems are stressed , that should be the underlying concern. The paradigm shift in water use and understanding its need s to be achieved , you can solve most things when you fix the underlying problem.

Over extraction and piecemeal basin management has so far led to a distortion in our perception as to what occurs elsewhere in the enviroment be it carbon emmisions or plastics manufacturing , over fishing or over logging.
Putting fruit trees on ground better suited to urbansiing and bulldozing hinterland so people get a view of the coast, putting your faith in business and losing site of good practice, theres yur water problem coming up again right there , overuse and msunderstanding in a stubborn inflexible refusal to adapt.

decourseNovember 25, 2013 at 12:48 pm

Dear people upset with those who elected Abbott,

Let me start by saying that I’m not going to tell you whom I personally voted for, but I will note in passing that you probably wouldn’t be upset with my choice.

I know that your letter probably wasn’t directed to die-hard Liberal supporters. Short of a complete screw-up (and I mean Rob Ford-style screw up), those people are going to vote Liberal no matter what. I’m assuming that it was probably directed to the swing voters living in marginal electorates. I don’t live in a marginal electorate, but nonetheless, let’s pretend that I can speak for them.

On behalf of those people: Your personal anger is mistargeted. No, scratch that, it’s really badly mistargeted.

Oh, don’t get me wrong. These people did elect Abbott. However, the majority of them did not actually vote for him. If you look at every electorate which the coalition picked up, they fall into three categories:

1. There was a retiring independent.
2. The coalition was elected by preferences from Palmer, Katter, or a local independent.
3. Electorates which were so close that the result was essentially random.

I believe there was exactly one electorate where the swing to the coalition was larger than the swing to one of these third groups (that would be Lyons, if anyone is playing along at home).

You may also have noticed that the coalition lost a couple of seats to independents and to Palmer.

If that didn’t convince you, look at the Senate. Palmer did well, but we also accidentally scored a few senators from minor parties, including a guy who videos himself flinging kangaroo droppings. It’s not that people necessarily voted for these minor senators; it’s an artefact of the group voting ticket system which saw preferences flow from Palmer, Wikileaks, and the Sex Party.

It would be a mistake to think that Australia intended to elect Abbott. Oh, sure, the zeitgeist preferred even him to the Labor leadership soap opera, but on the whole, they voted against both major parties. In the absence of a centre-right alternative to both major parties, they voted overwhelmingly for independents and Palmer, and merely expressed a preference for Abbott over the other major party.

But more to the point, the swing voters did exactly what they’re supposed to do when faced with a choice between two uninspiring major party alternatives and no chance of getting a third party candidate in their electorate: they voted for someone else in the Senate! The number of people voting for a major party in the senate was at an all-time record low. And the preference deal dance which resulted in micro-party candidates with less than 0.25% of the vote getting elected was hardly their fault; they thought they were voting for someone else.

What happened in the last election was not a bunch of people voting for Abbott. It was a bunch of people marginally preferring Abbott to whoever the Labor leader was this week, but mostly voting against both major parties.

Be honest. Can you really blame them?

I hope this helps you focus your anger a bit more accurately.

Sincerely,
Someone who Paid Attention to the Poll Results

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 11:56 am

I don’t understand Coalition voters. The latest poll shows 57% of them want the carbon tax gone. It also showed Australians overwhelmingly wanted to see Australia meet the nation’s commitment to cut emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 but only 12% support Direct Action. So are we just supposed to achieve reductions by wishing for them?

I saw Tony waffling on about how much households would save from the repeal of the carbon tax but he studiously avoids mentioning that, by axing the proposed increase of the tax free threshold from 18,200 to 19,400 this year, low income earners will be $228 worse off. Add that to axing the schoolkids bonus, the increase in the superannuation guarantee from 9.25% to 12%, and the superannuation co-contribution for low income earners (and no doubt other cost saving measures directed at low income earners and families), and I fail to see how the majority of us will benefit in either the short or long term.

cornlegendNovember 25, 2013 at 1:16 pm

terry
you said

“There is as much evidence against the science as there is for the science;”

Now if 97% of Scientists agree with the evidence and 3% are deniers, either my maths are bad, or yours are
97% ?
3% ?
equal.
Guess you got it first on Fox News

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 12:28 pm

Terry, ignoring your gaffe about the sun being the largest star in our solar system (it’s the ONLY star petal), the news that the sun has an effect is not new. You assume I have not looked at both sides – you are wrong. In the years I have been discussing climate change with deniers I have read every argument they have put forward, including yours. They have all been disproven by peer reviewed research.

There is an 11 year solar cycle. From solar minimum to maximum (eg – from 1996 to 2001), the forcing from the sun increases global temperatures by 0.18°C. Conversely, from solar maximum to minimum (eg – from 2001 to 2007), the reduced forcing from the sun cools global temperatures by 0.18°C.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 12:39 pm

this whole ‘We won’t leave anything for our children’ garbage, is both rubbish and pathetic, and just downright arrogant.

Tony Abbott: “The current government has turned $50 billion in the bank into debt spiralling towards $400 billion that our children and grandchildren will struggle to repay.”

I agree, pathetic rubbish.

Andrew SheldonNovember 25, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Victoria, your problem is that you don’t know what constitutes your reasonable ‘self-interest’, so you feel compelled to demand that others renounce their interests, because you think absence of the action is actually a moral code – its not. Your repudiating of personal self-interest is not a source of moral rectitude; its a vacuous decree that has you sanctioning the extortion of wealth rather than seeking justifiable reforms to a system that is calling out for change.
The problem being you are not selfish enough to know what’s in your self-interest.

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 2:04 pm

Pro-NBN National Day of Action is tomorrow

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm

Poll: What change would you like to see to the carbon tax climate change policy?

Scrap the carbon tax to replace with Direct Action
4%

Scrap the carbon tax to replace with nothing
10%

Scrap the carbon tax to replace with emissions trading scheme
56%

Keep the carbon tax
30%

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/postelection-poll-sends-message-to-tony-abbott-to-earn-voters-trust-20131124-2y41m.html#poll

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 1:33 pm

decourse, you make many valid points. However, one would assume that, as an election will result in a winner, that people would give more consideration to who they are voting FOR rather than against. The majority of Coalition voters that I know follow the same trend as those who have posted here and those that you mention – they were sick of disunity within the Labor Party. Whilst I can fully understand and share their displeasure, it really was just a distraction technique employed by Abbott and perpetuated by the media. It did not stop Labor from governing or introducing an incredible volume of legislative reform.

The public were duped and for that I am REALLY angry.

decourseNovember 25, 2013 at 2:40 pm

Kaye, thanks for the response.

I think that you’re not giving the voting population of Australia enough credit. I think that they did give consideration to whom they were voting for. Undecideds voted for anyone but the major parties. If there was a strong local independent, they voted for them, and if not, they voted for Palmer, whom they saw as a viable third option.

My point is that any analysis which sees this as a Labor vs Coalition battle is completely wrong. The swing voters of the electorate expressed a preference for Abbott, but it was only a mild preference. The strong preference was for anyone else.

(Even the Greens lost ground in this election. To the Greens, I say congratulations; Australia thinks you’re part of the establishment now.)

This is the new reality. People don’t want politics as usual on either side. The challenge is to see if anyone competent can step in to fill the void.

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 3:06 pm

The climate scientist, it appears have no problem with the allegations that the globe is cooling over recent times.

What concerns them, according to the national cycle caused by natural events, the cooling should have been much greater.

Yes, the scientist do know about the solar system and other natural causes of changes in climate. They do know what the sun and volcanoes.

They know the contribution that natural causes add.
What they are concerned about, is what is caused by carbon emissions.

Yep, I am inclined to believe the 97% of scientist, that work in the field, for most of their lives say.

Suspect they might know a little more than me.

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 2:19 pm

Interesting post Andrew.

Am I correct in translating that to mean Victoria doesn’t know what’s good for her but you, or Tony, do? Should she just not worry her pretty little head now that the adult men are there to look after her? Regardless of whether you agree with her or not, I doubt you can accuse Victoria of “absence of action” let alone adopting it as a moral code.

“Your repudiating of personal self-interest is not a source of moral rectitude; its a vacuous decree” ….sorry you will have to help me with what that very clever sounding phrase means.

You want justifiable reforms rather than an extortion of wealth – does that mean you are in favour of taxing the superprofits of mining companies? Or does it mean you want the poor to tighten their belts to help Gina up that 1 million per half hour that she is currently languishing on?

It must be comfortable to be selfish about self-interest. Immediate personal gratification is so much easier than thinking about one’s responsibilities in helping disadvantaged people and caring for the environment.

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Wait….I think I have decoded it. I love a good cryptic. You actually believe that repealing the carbon tax is in Victoria’s, and my, best interests? You believe that our best interests are served by having Tony Abbott as our Prime Minister? Is that it? If so, I would love to hear how my interests are best served by either of those things. I would hate to be accused of moral rectitude and I am most definitely not the suppository of all wisdom. Enlighten me.

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 2:37 pm

I am so giggling here…..

Being accused of moral rectitude by someone who begins their lecture with “your problem is that you don’t know what constitutes your reasonable ‘self-interest’” I find pretty funny. But I await your response with a smile on my face 🙂

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 3:03 pm

decourse I agree with what you say.

The first thing I would do to fill the void would be regain credibility by dumping the advertising people. Image and spin have replaced honesty and integrity. Advertising and PR people know HOW to sell, not WHAT to sell, yet they have stepped beyond their traditional role and are now dictating policy. Politicians are reacting to, and making decisions, based on dubious polls of a few thousand ill-informed members of the public. I think the Greens were both a victim of bad press and their own intransigence.

The next problem is the MSM though the 5th estate is lessening it’s influence. They distracted the public with trivialities and biased reporting. Factual analysis was totally absent in the slavish following of leadership speculation, climate change denial, and demonization of asylum seekers. Informed comment about the state of the economy was drowned out by cries of debt and deficit like these are terrible things. We need journalists to adhere to their code of conduct and the media to recognise it’s responsibility for fair and accurate reporting.

Rather than accountability and transparency, we have got blame and secrecy. Is there no-one who has the ticker to just get up and tell the truth anymore and actually let us help work towards the future?

I have been astonished by the lies and omissions and misrepresentation and manipulation. It has been so successful that someone like Mark Textor feels empowered enough to insult the Indonesian Government, and Peta Credlin now sits next to Tony Abbott at meetings with Heads of State.

Stop the games, present a long term plan, and explain it to us. Is that too much to hope for?

High TreasonNovember 25, 2013 at 4:07 pm

The 97% of climate scientists… sound bite is a misrepresentation. The Doron-Zimmermann study that came to this “conclusion” was heavily biased in the responses included and the nature of the questions. 10,257 or so questionnaires were sent out, around 3,000 responses. The responses considered were ONLY from a subset that identified themselves as active climate researchers, a group of just 77. 75 of this 77 said yes to these 2 questions-do you BELIEVE the planet is warmer now than in 1850? and do you BELIEVE that humans play a significant role in global warming? How big is the significant? Since when is BELIEF science? Science performed on belief is called religion. Science based on consensus is called politics.
There has been a lot of cherrypicking of the “science” of global warming. Scientists and papers that are contradictory to the claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are dismissed. Now, how do you expect a balanced debate on the science if you just refuse to look at contradictory evidence? Refusing to debate the issue by saying “the science is settled” is totally unscientific.REAL science is never settled.
The ad hominem smears and baseless assertions are the tactic of those with no actual case to actually defend.

BacchusNovember 25, 2013 at 5:07 pm

Then there’s this study Kaye Lee:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’.
…
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers.
…
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 4:15 pm

High Treason could you provide a link to a scientific paper discounting AGW or one that disproves global warming or disagrees that climate change is being influenced by manmade emissions? I would be evry happy to have a look at where you are getting your information from and read anything from a credible source.

TaylorNovember 25, 2013 at 5:21 pm

No fear of socialism is irrational. Socialism is something we should be very afraid of. In the words of Karl Marx, and so help me God for quoting him, socialism leads to communism. Do we want Australia to become like the welfare states of Scandinavia or do we want Australia to stand as one of the last great and free capitalist nations of the world?

The ETS is still a carbon tax. No matter how many times you try to sugar coat it, a tax is a tax is a tax is a tax.

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 4:24 pm

Well that didn’t take long. High Treason the article to which you refer was written by Barry Woods on the climate denial site Wattsupwiththat.

In usual denial fashion he cherry picks his story.

Now if our entire “belief” that 97% of scientists accept the science is based one supposedly flawed study it might give us pause. But of course, just like the science of climate change there are multiple lines of evidence supporting this statement:

•The 2004 study by Noami Oreskes, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” surveyed all peer-reviewed papers on global warming between 1993 and 2003 found not one disputed the consensus. 75% where in agreement and 25% made no statement because those papers focused on methodology

•The more recent 2010 paper by Anderegg, “Expert credibility in climate change” went beyond surveys and reviewed the actual published work of over 1300 climatologists and found 97-98% in agreement that climate change is real

Let’s not forget there is not a single national scientific academy on the planet who question the science. However, former mining executives, bloggers funded by think tanks and swarms of angry online trolls do.

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 5:33 pm

Would not mind living in the Scandinavia states. Do not hear pf many complaints from there. Well at east from most of their population.

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 5:35 pm

It is the USA, under their capitalist system, that I have no desire to live in.

Dan RowdenNovember 25, 2013 at 5:54 pm

Taylor,

Just saying an ETS is a tax doesn’t make it so. It also doesn’t mean a damned thing. It’s as though “tax” is a dirty word. Did you stop voting for the Coalition when they introduced the GST?

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 4:57 pm

I do apologise. Barry Woods wrote an article using information he got from an article written by Lawrence Solomon.

Lawrence Solomon is a columnist with The Financial Post, the National Post (Toronto) and has been a columnist for the Globe and Mail (Toronto) a contributor to the Wall Street Journal, and the editor and publisher of The Next City magazine.

He authored a book in 2008 titled The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud based on a series of articles he wrote for the National Post.

Solomon has promoted the views of numerous climate skeptics in his “Deniers” series including “The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth.”

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 6:02 pm

Just for the record, it is not a tax. Yes, one can say it act like one. It is based on carbon emissions.

Don;t emit, no tax.

Now the government is saying, they will not be in introducing a tax.

NO, they will be taking the money out of general revenue.

Now do we have fairies that put the money there, or is it the truth, it is raised by taxes.

As usual, like all this government has done in the last 69 days, it will be kept secret. Not worth Abbott’s time, telling us how and why.

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 25, 2013 at 6:08 pm

Stop picking on Taylor. He clearly lacks the intellect to debate, and clearly has no capacity to see irony. Leave the poor person alone, in a battle of wits, he’s unarmed.

TaylorNovember 25, 2013 at 6:11 pm

Don’t change the subject from Labor’s toxic tax to the GST.

BacchusNovember 25, 2013 at 6:13 pm

The ETS is no more a tax than is your driver’s license. You choose to drive a car on public roads? Well you need to purchase a driver’s license from “da gubbermint.” Choose to emit CO2 equivalent gas in the course of making money from your business? Well you need to purchase carbon units from “da gubbermint” in the first instance. You can then trade those carbon units with others who may have more or less than they need.

BacchusNovember 25, 2013 at 6:17 pm

My guess is “Taylor” is much too young to know anything about the implementation of the GST 😉

Fed upNovember 25, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Why not. Time to have a full inquiry not that tax. The GST I mean. We man find it does not work as claimed.

Wonder how much of the GST that services are liable for, disappear into the black money market, with no taxes been collected.

A least it is a tax, not like that alleged toxic tax, which is not.

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 25, 2013 at 6:23 pm

Taylor, when you use the phrase “toxic tax” could you explain why you use it. Or was it just something someone said that you thought was worth repeating. Do you know the meaning of the word “toxic”?
It means poisonous. How can a tax be poisonous?
Clearly you have no idea about the meaning of words. As for your understanding of socialism? What does it mean exactly, Presumably as one of Tony’s little choir boys, you must be able to justify his Direct Action Policy, but SUBSIDISING people to change their behaviour sure sounds like socialism to me.
You better ask your boss how to answer this one, because, mate, you’re way out of your depth here!

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 25, 2013 at 6:25 pm

Come on, Taylor, how is Direct Action not a form of socialism?
Oh, that’s right, Mark Textor has stop tweeting.

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 25, 2013 at 6:26 pm

Taylor?
Oh, Mark Textor said that he was closing his Twitter account because of death threats.
Gee, Liberal HQs are pretty savage when one of their own stuffs up.

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 25, 2013 at 6:27 pm

What does socialism mean, Taylor?

khtaghNovember 25, 2013 at 6:28 pm

Dear Mr/Mrs Taylor
I take it that your pathological aversion to a tax will see you go into intellectual melt down when the Lieberals increase the GST to 15% & broaden its base to include everything, you love to talk with emotive terms like a true Abbott clone like ” Toxic Tax” unfortunately your selective outrage is false unless you are prepared to oppose any! change to the GST, which I’ll bet my balls you won’t. So cut the crap, it is not a tax, the price on POLLUTION!! did not go into general revenue, it went into the renewables industries. I’ll bet if I came & pissed in your water supply & crapped on your dinner you would be screaming blue murder, but you are silent about industries doing the same to your, water, air, food supply, why ? oh that’s right your a Liberal & can’t see they are the same thing because it doesn’t suit your false argument.

BacchusNovember 25, 2013 at 6:39 pm

Want an example of what this “toxic tax” can achieve for industry? Try a paper manufacturer:
http://www.kimberly-clark.com.au/en/sustainability/planet/climate-change-global-warming/case-study/

In 2011 Kimberly-Clark Australia announced our Millicent tissue mill will reduce our carbon footprint by around 90,000 tonnes a year when a new $30 million investment in a combined heat and power generation project comes on line in 2013.

With the installation of a 20MW turbine, boiler and exhaust duct connections to tissue machines, Millicent mill be self-sufficient in electricity.

The $30 million investment is expected to:

* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90,000 tons per year.
* Generate enough electricity to power 20,000 homes.
* Reduce carbon emissions equivalent to removing 32,600 small cars from the road.
* Reduce carbon emissions equivalent to planting 10,000 hectare of trees per year.

Committed to our ongoing efforts to reduce the effects of climate change, Kimberly-Clark Millicent mill manager, Scott Whicker, said: “The project involves the installation of a gas turbine and heat recovery process at the Millicent site. This will provide steam, electricity and drying capability for the mill’s operations resulting in state of the art energy efficiencies.

BacchusNovember 25, 2013 at 6:48 pm

How about a meat works?
http://2degreesproject.com.au/Story/clean-energy-meat

A family-owned meat works in Inverell has become a global trail blazer. Bindaree Beef is the first abattoir in the world to use a new technology to turn the waste from meat processing into green energy.

It dramatically cuts carbon pollution, odour and costs. The company’s future is now secure and so are the hundreds of jobs which help sustain the town.
…
We direct waste from meat processing – even undigested grass, cow manure, and blood – into an equalisation tank. Then we make sure the pH is right before pumping it into an anaerobic bio-digester. That’s where the bio-organisms do their stuff and generate it all into bio-gas for us to power our business. The digester also produces organic fertiliser and Class A recycled water for irrigation.

Depending on state planning we’re hoping to start work on the main plant by February, 2014. This is a $46 million dollar project and we’re receiving a grant of nearly $23 million from the Federal Government funded by the carbon price. We’re hoping at first to generate 1.2MW to 1.6 MW and some of that power we’ll sell back into the grid.

We’ll save about $2.4 million a year in operating costs and generate about $1.7 million a year in additional income from fertiliser sales. Our taxable carbon emissions will go from 28,000 tonnes down to 1200 tonnes eliminating 95% of our taxable emissions. That’s the same as taking 60,000 cars off the road over 10 years.

The new process also reduces all odours because most of those come from anaerobic lagoons which we’ll no longer require. To get rid of the coal and the smoke, to make us clean, to not see our stack anymore, to have no odours and be sustainable for the town is an absolutely wonderful thing.

(bold mine)

Maybe that “tax” isn’t as “toxic” as someone had led you to believe. Now who would want to do that? And why? 😉 Can you think for yourself? Investigate? Find out truth vs hyperbole & spin?

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 25, 2013 at 6:50 pm

Taylor must have gone back to HQ for further instruction and a definition of socialism.

Dan RowdenNovember 25, 2013 at 7:17 pm

Yeah, but you have to give a Young Liberal some kudos for having a go, I suppose.

rossleighbrisbaneNovember 25, 2013 at 6:29 pm

Here, Taylor, you better read this

Sandi DarlingNovember 25, 2013 at 8:21 pm

YES! A thousand times yes. The small increase in electricity bills (offset by much larger government subsidies for private dwellings/individuals) is meaningless in the face of real and immediate climate change.

doctorrob54November 25, 2013 at 8:26 pm

The difference between Socialism and…………………no I don’t think I’ll bother right now,don’t know what to give young Taylor Dan,but kudos,not this time mate.If I new he was such a young fella trying it on I would not have been so at times savage.Think I might check twitter out a bit for now.

astrid brockdorffNovember 25, 2013 at 8:29 pm

well said! well written and i entirely agree with you!

BacchusNovember 25, 2013 at 8:35 pm

We don’t really know Doc Rob – “Taylor” may be a he, a she, a teenager, a middle aged fool, a……

He/she just “sounds” young from the manner in which he/she writes, and the naive repetition of “talking points” showing no depth of understanding of the argument…

Kaye LeeNovember 25, 2013 at 8:07 pm

In all the hoopla of the election, we have forgotten that there was a G20 summit on September 6th in Russia.

“Nations of the world’s leading economies rank climate change along with growth, jobs, investment and trade as a key issue of the future, one that will extract ever higher costs if “we delay additional actions,” according to language of the St. Petersburg Declaration, adopted by the G20 nations September 6.

Leaders of the 19 nations and the European Union reaffirmed “our commitment to fight climate change.” The statement also looks toward to the upcoming Conference of the Parties of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as a forum where further progress might be made toward the overarching goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing adaptations to a changing climate.

COP-19, as the November meeting (was) known, (was) held in Warsaw, Poland. (That’s the one we didn’t bother sending any politicians to.)

Regarding the overall G20 agreement on “Pursing the Fight against Climate Change,” the St. Petersburg declaration endorsed the efforts of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to build international political agreement for a next-generation protocol that will extend the goals of the UNFCCC to deal with climate change beyond 2020, when current agreements and successive extensions expire.

The St. Petersburg Declaration also affirms support of the Green Climate Fund, which was put forth as a financial operating arm of the UNFCC in 2010. The fund is intended to help promote the shift to development strategies based on low-emission technologies, which would help emerging and growing economies reduce GHGs and adapt to the effects of climate change.”

It’s going to be interesting in Brisbane next year watching Tony dance. 🙂

MmmmmmNovember 25, 2013 at 11:19 pm

The day when we as a community start buying the things we truly need and not the things we desire. The day we turn off our air conditioners. The day we buy stop buying gas guzzling 4wds. The day we all make choices to change our way in what we consume will be the day we really start to see real change. We all want climate change but how many of us really are prepared to change our lifestyle for it? China, India and other countries want our life style too so before you tout the moral high ground think if you really are prepared to change your ways first.

Hunter GNovember 26, 2013 at 12:15 am

very good call victoria. very good call. thank you.

I, too, am utterly sick of expending energy on trying to justify my actions/opinions (in my case, mostly relating to The Kimberley region of NW Oz) to folks who are so incredibly fearful (and greedy as a result) that their heads have been placed so deeply in the sand that they have a mighty good chance of striking some sort of valuable fossil fuel and might as well start their own mining company while they’re at it.

I lasted all of five minutes max before i lost it with my new flatmate who was keen to discuss (read as ‘deliver the same old predictable pro mining propaganda’ and listen to nothing in return) the benefits of Woodside Petroleum and WA Premier, Barnett, turning The Kimberley into an industrial hub.

We gotta pick and choose carefully how/where we expend our constructive energies because many many of the Abbott-eers/Barnett-eers out there are just sunk way too deep.

Thanks again, keep your head up and keep up the passion.

Hunter G

ps you’re probably already aware but on The Kimberley issue – WA Premier, Barnett is determined beyond belief to turn The Kimberley into an industrial hub with a lifespan of fifty years. FIFTY YEARS ONLY – in exchange for milions of years of absolutely extraordinary creation and millenia of a wonderfully sensitive people and culture living in harmony with nature. Absolute madness. Yet Barnett just got re-elected and, after a brief respite due to Woodside pulling out, Barnett has just restarted his sociopathic campaign by compulsorarliy acquiring Goolarabooloo’s homeland around James Price Point (Walmadan). The fight goes on…

Hunter GNovember 26, 2013 at 12:22 am

Reblogged this and commented:
check it out – a good blog post. And here’s my response too:

“very good call victoria. very good call. thank you.

We gotta pick and choose carefully how/where we expend our constructive energies because many many of the Abbott-eers/Barnett-eers out there are just sunk way too deep.

Thanks again, keep your head up and keep up the passion.

Hunter G

Dan RowdenNovember 26, 2013 at 10:51 am

I don’t see the problem. Welfare recipients are basically untrustworthy criminal types, so why not test them for illicit drugs? It’s not like they can’t afford them or anything, as opposed to the business types you’ll find in the offices of every CBD whose every spare cent of disposable income goes on charity and life’s essentials, like a 4WD that will never see a country road. I mean, that’s only because they can’t afford enough petrol to get out there, you know, with most of their spare dosh going to the Salvos and Refugee Advocacy groups and such like …

Actually, we should check welfare recipients for things like STDs and stuff while we’re at it. Oh, except old age pensioners. That might be a bit redundant.

Kaye LeeNovember 26, 2013 at 10:40 am

I have to say, I can’t decide whether to laugh at Young Liberals or to be vewwy afwaid.

At the LNP State Conference in Queensland, The Young Libs put forward three proposals. Sanity prevailed and these first two were defeated:

“Random illicit drug testing for long term unemployed and welfare recipients was voted down, as well as removing Australian content quotas for free-to-air television.”

Their third proposal was passed. While hundreds of people protested outside about school closures, what was upper most on the YL agenda? They want cracker night!

“The plan was hatched by the younger party members, many of whom were not alive to see the maimings associated with firecrackers before sales were banned in the 1970s.

Young LNP state president Hermann Vorster urged the government to now adopt the policy and believes the “Cracker Night” could be a boon for tourism.

“I think more than anything this is about sending a message that we don’t necessarily subscribe to the notion of the nanny-state,” Mr Vorster said.”

They really should stop feeding these kids lines like “nanny-state” and “socialism”. They just sound silly as they repeat them ad nauseum about everything to do with government. They seem to fail to realise that the government has a share of all our money and an obligation to invest it in stuff for US and to make rules that protect US. This isn’t daddy’s business venture kids.

Fed upNovember 26, 2013 at 11:57 am

Well Pyne is going to tell us what is good for our kids in about ten minutes, ABC 24. Of course, as usual with this mob, he is the only one in step.

Kaye LeeNovember 26, 2013 at 10:58 am

Dan, I was utterly disgusted by Judith Sloane on the Drum last night. As a journalist was talking about his expose about companies hiding profits in tax havens and people forming trusts etc and the amount of tax that was unpaid because of these measures, she kept interrupting to say you obviously don’t understand business, that is all completely legit. Does this woman fail to see that that means the working people of Australia are paying for everything? She thinks that is ok because of loophole? There is no such thing as morality or responsibility with people like her. What’s best for me, how can I get out of paying any tax at all, the less I pay the cleverer I am. Could I suggest that if we actually got the rich to pay their share we wouldn’t have a deficit problem. How about an audit into THAT!!!

Fed upNovember 26, 2013 at 11:59 am

Kaye, I do hope that Sloan keeps up with her arrogance. It is nice to know what they really believe democracy is all about.

Is it true, that only high income earners buy fresh fruit and vegetables?

Greeny from BrisbaneNovember 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm

bahahahahaha what a crock of pathetic Labor spiced delusionary commentary. If your Labor/Green coalition heroes were so adamant about preventing climate change through reducing the use of fossil fuels why did they approve the expansion of the Abbot Point Coal Terminal to cater for the opening up of the Galilee Basin coal reserves. I think its to the tune of 110 million tonnes per annum capacity of thermal coal – all destined for the export market. While your contemplating this, have a crack at working out why Labor also approved the three big CSG projects in QLD, the Gorgon LNG project in WA and just to add some interest, the disposal of large volumes of capital dredge spoil into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Interesting stuff from your environment loving Labor/Green coalition. By the way, most of Australia don’t really give a toss if you are upset that we voted for the coalition. Go back to your poodle faking workshops and try not to bother the sensible majority.

Dan RowdenNovember 26, 2013 at 7:12 pm

You seem to be operating under the illusion that being a proponent of Climate Change action means wanting industry and mining to stop. That’s weird.

Kaye LeeNovember 26, 2013 at 7:52 pm

Greeny from Brisbane (a nom de plume no doubt 😉 )

Not to mention that the approvals you are talking about came from the Qld state government under Anna Bligh. The federal legislation refers to the water table and was only passed late in the Labor govt’s tenure. Mr Newman rang Tony Abbott as soon as he was elected and said give the approval for the Galilee.

“THE Queensland premier has asked prime minister-elect Tony Abbott to push through approvals for massive new coal mining projects in the Galilee basin.

He said he’d kept the message about what Queensland wanted from Mr Abbott very simple.

“And it’s really just to get out of the way and let this government get on with taking the state forward economically,” Mr Newman said.

“I said without any hesitation the need to see the massive Galilee Basin coal projects approved as soon as possible,” Mr Newman told ABC radio.

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/breaking-news/get-galilee-moving-newman-tells-abbott/story-fnj6ehgr-1226716643144

The federal government has approved a massive coal mining project in central Queensland that will be the largest in the country.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt approved the 37,380 hectare Kevin’s Corner project on Friday.

The mine, to be operated by a joint India-Australia consortium, GVK-Hancock, is the first to be approved since the introduction of a new water trigger rule by the previous federal government.

Greenpeace claims Kevin’s Corner will use more than nine billion litres of water a year and the Lock the Gate Alliance says more information on its impact on Galilee Basin groundwater is needed.

Water science experts urged Mr Hunt to reject any mining proposals that would adversely impact water supplies.

They said mining and coal seam gas extraction could damage aquifers, rivers and water catchments.

However, under the Abbott government’s new cumulative impact strategy for reef protection – whereby projects are assessed in relation to the effect of all projects along the Queensland coast rather than in isolation – the rejection of offshore dumping of 12 million cubic metres of dredge spoils at Gladstone would make it easier to approve offshore dumping of spoils to expand the Abbot Point coal terminal, 25km north of Bowen.
Mr Hunt said he had not made any decision on Abbot Point, which is due to be delivered by December 13.

See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/gladstone-ports-bid-to-dump-dredge-spoils-on-great-barrier-reef-axed/story-e6frg6xf-1226761473910#sthash.f7b95oit.dpuf

Kaye LeeNovember 26, 2013 at 8:03 pm

lolol

” Go back to your poodle faking workshops and try not to bother the sensible majority”

I await with baited breath enlightenment from the sensible majority in relation to the articles mentioned in my last post that seem to refute everything the sensible majority said (without any links to verofy such assertions).

And I would suggest today is bad day to draw attention to poodles.

cornlegendNovember 26, 2013 at 9:25 pm

https://twitter.com/Elikifil/status/405189001331490816/photo/1

TaylorNovember 27, 2013 at 9:07 am

The reason why us Young Liberals oppose socialism and the nanny state is because we know that we are able to look after ourselves and don’t need the government to look after our every need. That is the message that the Young Liberal Movement is trying to get across.

Dan RowdenNovember 27, 2013 at 10:21 am

Taylor,

When you go to a pharmacy to have a script filled, do you demand to pay full price? If not, why not?

Kaye LeeNovember 27, 2013 at 10:30 am

Taylor,

Even Young Liberals grow up. Will you refuse to accept the old age pension (should it still exist by the time you reach old age that is)?

If, God forbid, you had an accident and could no longer work, would you refuse a disablility pension and refuse any carers payments to whoever was looking after you?

Do you insist on paying your doctor’s bill and hospital bills and then refuse to claim any of it back from Medicare?

If you were retrenched from your job would you refuse Newstart payments whilst you looked for another?

nurses1968November 27, 2013 at 11:53 am

Taylor,
Have your lot improved any , or are you the same old group of dimwits that participated in this

A little bit of form on the Young Liberal wannabees

Queensland LNP operative Nicholas Stanton and dozens of LNP colleagues plan to celebrate former Prime Minister Gough Whitlams birthday because the man is old and nearly dead, he got sacked, and he is just shit no point rubbing it in, we definitely got the last laugh! So lets (sic) celebrate and be happy!!

When asked by one of his friends why they were celebrating Whitlams birthday in this way and not merely condemning the target of their enmity, Stanton responded:
because we’re cool, he’s old and nearly dead..aaaaand, He got SACKED! I think we get the last laugh! So why not be happy?? Also just to be random and funny!

VEXNEWS has obtained access to a Facebook page established by Stanton, where at the time 17 of his friends, most of them activists within the LNP, had indicated their intention to participate in the ghoulish celebration of Whitlamâs impending demise. Two of them are believed to be staffers to federal members of Parliament, Phil Pease is believed to work for high-flying former minister Peter Dutton and Zach Davis-Hancock apparently is employed as an electorate officer for marginal seat holder Andrew Laming. One of those indicating that he ‘maybe’ attending is Luke Barnes, who is believed to be an employee of Fiona Nash, a NSW Nationals federal MP. He once served Sophie Mirabella with distinction before departing in controversial circumstances.

khtaghNovember 27, 2013 at 12:30 pm

Well all I can say about the young Lieberals & the the old ones too for that matter, is that if you actually look back at election behavior, you have to conclude (correctly I might add) that the only way the Lieberals get elected is to cheat!, manipulating a pissed GG to sack a legitimate government & then allowing a criminal media Barron to manipulate the electorate with lying propaganda masquerading as a news paper is cheating. Or you just go out & buy votes like the Rodent did 3 times.

Once the people who vote National Party realise that the LNP don’t do a bloody thing for them once elected we might see things change dramatically at the next election. We might find that things are not as set in stone as we might think for the next 3 yrs, Palmer is going to be a nightmare for Abbott from what 4 corners showed on Monday night, he will either be bankrupted, or be the first modern day MP to die on the job, the man like Gina (as my nursing sister says) are walking heart attacks waiting to happen.

Imagine the party we will all have when the rodent falls off the perch!.

BacchusNovember 27, 2013 at 1:01 pm

“Taylor” only speaks in slogans and rhetoric, indicating that he/she has no understanding of what he/she thinks he/she believes in. This is good news – it means that it is possible that one day “Taylor” may open both eyes and see that he/she is merely spouting platitudes fed to him/her by people with nefarious intent. If this day ever arrives and knowledge and understanding grows, there’s a very good chance, “Taylor” will vote Labor 😆

Kaye LeeNovember 27, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Lets not forget that it was at a Young Liberals function that Alan Jones made his infamous comments about Julia Gillard’s father dying of shame. I guess he figured that would appeal to the crowd.

JONATHAN MARSHALL: And one of the things that I noted was that no-one in that room walked out, there was everyone remaining on their seats, people laughing, people cheering, but there was, I think, an audible sign of – you know, an audible gasp.

CONOR DUFFY: The hosts initially praised the speech as “brilliant”, calling Mr Jones the country’s “most influential broadcaster”. But when the comments hit the press, the Young Liberals issued a belated apology.

Kaye LeeNovember 27, 2013 at 2:00 pm

“One of the nation’s oldest health organisations has been placed in voluntary administration after its funding was cut by the government.

The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, which has operated since 1966, learned on Monday its funding would cease immediately. The council is the peak body for organisations working to minimise the harm caused by drugs and alcohol, providing professional development, information sharing and advocacy services on an annual budget of $1.6 million from the federal Health Department.”

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/alcohol-and-other-drugs-council-of-australia-in-administration-after-tony-abbott-cuts-20131126-2y836.html#ixzz2lnFHRnMA

Just how many services, charities and NFPs are going to be cut to pay for Tony’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme and Direct Payment to Polluters Plan?

gina RyanNovember 27, 2013 at 2:21 pm

Hear hear Victoria.
Morons will always vote for morons that justifies their existence more than their greed essentially.

TaylorNovember 27, 2013 at 5:28 pm

Me vote Labor? You’re joking? I will vote Liberal in the House and in the Senate at the next election and the election after that. I will always vote Liberal in the House and in the Senate because I know that a Coalition Government is what is best for me and that is represents my ideas and values.

khtaghNovember 27, 2013 at 5:39 pm

Taylor
Just show you have no ideas or values!

Dan RowdenNovember 27, 2013 at 6:12 pm

Taylor, your team’s game has only just started and they have fumbled the ball from the kick off. Turns out you guys don’t have a game plan. You were good at sledging, I will give you that. But sledging doesn’t put runs on the board. We are not even to quarter time and you are getting thrashed.

Way to mix those sporing metaphors Kaye Lee! 🙂

Taylor,

You were asked some relevant questions regarding your attitude towards socialism and the “nanny state”. Will you answer them or not?

TaylorNovember 27, 2013 at 6:55 pm

I told you. I’m a Liberal because the Liberal Party’s ideology is an ideology I can relate to. It makes sense to me and I agree with it. Also, I know that Liberal policies will benefit me.

I will get 25mbps under the Coalition’s FTTN NBN. Why do I need 100mbps? So I can play games faster?

Extreme weather is a natural part of our world. We’re going to get typhoons, tornadoes, bush fires, floods. There’s nothing we can do but suck it up when it happens.

I’m choosing to take over my father’s business when he dies (like he wants me to) and so I will be my own employer.

My electricity bills will go down once we axe the toxic carbon tax.

Nothing lasts for ever. Everything comes to an end. As will the Great Barrier Reef. Even if it does die, does that mean that life doesn’t go on? It’s not going to affect me.

Mining companies want to make a profit from their mining. We’re not supposed to make a profit from the mining done by mining companies.

Worker’s won’t be loosing their rights. But Unions will be put in their place and the work place relations pendulum will be restored to the sensible centre.

So you want to keep the car industry alive but want people to use public transport so that not many people are ‘polluting with cars’? Or do you want people to buy cars but just not use them? Makes sense…

If we invest too much in ‘renewable’ energy how we are supposed to keep the fossil fuel electricity companies alive?

Every Labor criticism can be debunked by the almost flawless logic of our Party. I say almost flawless because of course no ideology is perfect.

Also, this is just a note to everyone. Can we keep it to one question at a time please? It just makes it easier for me to answer them. Thank you!

Möbius EckoNovember 27, 2013 at 6:57 pm

But so far you’re not answering anything Taylor.

Möbius EckoNovember 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Keep things simple for Taylor folks, just like Pyne who can’t handle anything more complex than organising a kindergarten play session.

Kaye LeeNovember 27, 2013 at 6:04 pm

So let me get this right Taylor, you don’t care about policies or performance. You bought a Liberal jersey when you were born and you will wear it for the rest of your life regardless of what it might mean for you.

Well let me tell you what it means.

You will not get fast NBN.

Your insurance premiums will become unaffordable as more and more extreme weather events occur.

Your (or your future children’s) school will receive less money.

Your employer will contribute far less towards superannuation for you.

Your electricity bill will continue to go up and, as fossil fuels and other resources diminish, you will pay even more.

The Great Barrier reef will die – your grandchildren will never see it.

Your country will miss out on collecting any return for its resources which we all own while foreign mining companies make record profits.

Penalty rates, workers’ rights, and OHS regulations will be non-existent with no collective voice to support them.

Public transport will languish while we spend billions on more roads because we need more cars polluting.

The car industry will die.

The renewable energy industry will die.

I could go on and on….but I suspect that you truly don’t care. You are a member of a gang and you like the security it gives you. They feed you lines to say which you happily regurgitate even though it is very obvious you have no idea what they mean. You are feeling like a winner right now – you think your team won the grand final and you are proudly waving the flag.

Taylor, your team’s game has only just started and they have fumbled the ball from the kick off. Turns out you guys don’t have a game plan. You were good at sledging, I will give you that. But sledging doesn’t put runs on the board. We are not even to quarter time and you are getting thrashed.

Time for you to look a little further for your information Taylor because you are being taken for a ride.

TaylorNovember 27, 2013 at 7:11 pm

Well I told you; I’m happy to answer questions just so long as it’s not ridicule of me, Tony Abbott or my Party and so long as it’s one question at a time.

Kaye LeeNovember 27, 2013 at 6:18 pm

Hey I’m trying to be inclusive here. Tony has been called for obstruction. He took a drop costing him a penalty stroke that he is trying desperately to make up for. Leaving the blocks before the gun goes is fraught with danger and can piss off the rest of the competitors. Overstepping the line is a no-jump. And practising your hammer throw with China is scaring the shit out of me.

Fed upNovember 27, 2013 at 7:28 pm

“I will get 25mbps under the Coalition’s FTTN NBN. Why do I need 100mbps? So I can play games faster?”

Might meet your needs, Not necessary the doctor next door, or the woman up the road, that wants to set up a home business,

“Extreme weather is a natural part of our world. We’re going to get typhoons, tornadoes, bush fires, floods. There’s nothing we can do but suck it up when it happens. ”

Definitely a fact. I hope you get used to having those extremes more often, and increasing in intensity.

“I’m choosing to take over my father’s business when he dies (like he wants me to) and so I will be my own employer.”

Lets hope that there is not another GFC, and dad loses the lot. I also hope there is still a market for what he produces today. What do they say, one generations builds, the second loses what they are given.

“My electricity bills will go down once we axe the toxic carbon tax.”

Not by much and not for long. Hope dad was not relying on some of those tax benefits for small businesses that Abbott demolished. Be lucky to but a cup of Latte a week, Pity dad will not have access for funds, to put in technology to lower his power bills. That has gone too.

“Worker’s won’t be loosing their rights. But Unions will be put in their place and the work place relations pendulum will be restored to the sensible centre.”

Where is the evidence that unions have much power today. When was the last time dad had any trouble with a union. How many of his employers belong to a union.

:So you want to keep the car industry alive but want people to use public transport so that not many people are ‘polluting with cars’? Or do you want people to buy cars but just not use them? Makes sense…:

I have no idea of what your point is with this one. Maybe you can explain further.

“If we invest too much in ‘renewable’ energy how we are supposed to keep the fossil fuel electricity companies alive?”

The idea is for it to die. Just like the horse and cart did at the beginning of last century. It is called progress. New industries takes it place.

“Nothing lasts for ever. Everything comes to an end. As will the Great Barrier Reef. Even if it does die, does that mean that life doesn’t go on? It’s not going to affect me.”

Still it has been there for hundreds of years. Does make the world a better place to live in. Employs a lot of people, More than in those mines, if the truth is known.

“Every Labor criticism can be debunked by the almost flawless logic of our Party. I say almost flawless because of course no ideology is perfect.”

You will have to show me where the logic is. I cannot see any.

Fed upNovember 27, 2013 at 7:43 pm

Yes, Pyne is the only person in the land that finds Better Schools in comprehensive.

David Gonski was asked to look at the education system in this land. Yes, state, Catholic and Independent schools. The whole lot.

He, and his panel took five years and mountains of research and gathering of information to do so.

They came up with the Gonski scheme. A couple of years was spent in setting up experiment trials through funding from the Federal Government.

From these trials, Better Schools was created.

Pyne comes along, is going to ignore all these studies, and from his own beliefs, in weeks is hoping to give us a completely new funding model.

Yes, Better Schools has been five years in the making.

When Gillard first set out, with this project, there was no numbers or data relating to education in this country to be found.

Of course, Gillard was unable to put all that Gonski suggested, but it was a damn good start, that could have been built on.

Another fact, our kids are not going backwards, when it comes to learning.

That is not the problem.

The problem is that the countries around us are improving in leaps and bounds. We are not keeping up.

By the way, David Gonski or most of his panel are not lefties. The opposite in fact.

This government seems to have a problem with anyone that can give expert advice, no matter the field.

Science and health issues seem to be on top of their list. All are gone.

Möbius EckoNovember 27, 2013 at 6:59 pm

And this governments massive diplomacy muck ups just keep coming. After Robb’s faux pas this morning we get this.

Beijing furious over Julie Bishop’s ‘irresponsible’ remarks

Beijing delivers an angry rebuke over what it says are “irresponsible remarks” made by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop regarding Chinese territorial claims in the East China Sea.

What a bunch of idiots.

Fed upNovember 27, 2013 at 7:59 pm

They promised before the election to be a “no-surprises” government.
But since winning power the Abbott government has lengthened its list of broken promises and policy surprises by more than one a week.
Just two days ago, the Federal Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, performed a brazen policy back-flip on school funding, saying he would no longer accept Labor’s funding and overall model despite Tony Abbott making this pre-election promise: “We will honour the agreements that Labor has entered into. We will match the offers that Labor has made. We will make sure that no school is worse off.”
A few weeks ago, the Coalition’s pre-election commitment to “turn back the boats” was broken after Immigration Minister Scott Morrison ended a tense standoff with Jakarta – which was refusing to accept a boatload of asylum seekers – by ordering the boat to be taken to Christmas Island.
Advertisement
Last month, Treasurer Joe Hockey said he wanted to increase the debt ceiling from $300 billion to $500 billion. That was after the Coalition attacked the then Labor government’s decision in May last year to raise Australia’s debt ceiling from $250 billion to $300 billion, which Tony Abbott described at the time as “really extraordinary”.
“What Joe Hockey is now doing on both the commission of cuts and on the issue of the debt ceiling is a million miles away from the expectations he gave the Australian people before the election,” Labor finance spokesman Tony Burke said about the Coalition’s recent decision to raise the debt limit.
Mr Abbott also p

Dan RowdenNovember 27, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Taylor,

If you have political aspirations of any kind the first lesson you need to learn is that anything said publicly is something, well, said publicly. It’s a lesson you sorely need to learn.

GillyNovember 27, 2013 at 8:15 pm

Taylor,
If you can really look after yourself, start pushing for the Government to stop wasting money on Police, the Courts and Prisons. That would save a lot of money.

BacchusNovember 27, 2013 at 10:06 pm

Taylor,

What does “socialism” mean to you?

Greeny from BrisbaneNovember 27, 2013 at 10:08 pm

Hi Kaye Lee, um the Federal approvals for the Projects were issued by the Federal Labor Government pursuant to the identified controlling provisions in place prior to the recent inclusion of the groundwater trigger provision. Check out referral 2008/4648 regarding Hancocks coal project and you will see Tony Burke approved it as the Environment Minister. If Labor / Greens have got it so right regarding the cessation of coal for energy why did they approve this project which as is reported will be the biggest coal mine is Australia. As a professional environmental scientist (ecologist by trade) I find your political based arguments for environmental conservation a load of crap. Let the scientists do the talking and the poodle fakers can sit round the fire and sing kumbaya and sip their peppermint teas.

TaylorNovember 27, 2013 at 10:13 pm

Well if I had to define socialism I would define it as a transitionary economic system wherein capital is, through means of government intervention and regulation, redistributed through various government services, welfare, handouts and benefits.

Personally I think that’s a pretty good definition.

I understand that we have services such as MediCare and CentreLink however I believe that the purpose of social progress is to progress towards a society were the individual is independent from the state and therefore free to look after himself, serve himself, and ultimately government himself as an independent individual free from the rest of society (Ayn Rand/Objectivist philosophy (thought I would point that out)). As society progresses so must the government regress. So basically I believe that the purpose of social progress is to lead us towards a more libertarian society from a conservative society. I hope that makes sense.

doctorrob54November 27, 2013 at 10:21 pm

It might be OK for you and your pals living of cashed up mums and dads,but mate that is not the way it is for the majority of Aussies.In this nation every one has the right to quality education,health and living standard.
Not just the selected few.Near every one of the senior ministers in the party you adore,including abbott and pyne paid nothing for their University Education,their ideology is no way to show appreciation.

TaylorNovember 27, 2013 at 10:27 pm

I wouldn’t say that my parents are ‘cashed up’. Yes I had a private education and yes my parents have paid uni fees as well as private health fees and leant me a house on their property to stay in. However, the only reason they are able to afford that is because they have worked hard and therefore been rewarded for the efforts of their work. My mother was a dentist and then a lawyer and my dad is a small business owner. They have obviously worked hard and have therefore been able to afford a higher standard of living. If others work hard, they can make it to this standard also. It’s ridiculous to take from those who have worked hard and give to those who have been pretty much lazy.

doctorrob54November 27, 2013 at 10:55 pm

TAYLOR,answer previous question.DO you demand to pay full price for medication at chemist or accept Socialist PBS discounted price,if so why.You young libs know how to look after yourselves.Yes or No.

TaylorNovember 27, 2013 at 11:02 pm

Well the purpose of social progress is for society to progress away from such public funded programs and towards a state in which one looks after oneself.

GillyNovember 27, 2013 at 11:51 pm

Taylor please don’t think of a Curable Palsy or Muscular Dystrophy victim as lazy or that someone on a low wage does not work hard. And please don’t step in front of a truck.

Dan RowdenNovember 27, 2013 at 11:58 pm

Taylor,

Well the purpose of social progress is for society to progress away from such public funded programs and towards a state in which one looks after oneself.

That’s the “purpose” of social progress according to you. Others may differ.

Ayn Rand? Really? You understand that Fountainhead was essentially a romance novel, right?

Dan RowdenNovember 28, 2013 at 12:03 am

Oh, and Taylor, please swing by and look after my girlfriend’s profoundly autistic son for a week and tell me how she’s supposed to achieve the sort of self-sufficiency you advocate. Or are you a eugenicist on top of everything?

Kaye LeeNovember 28, 2013 at 6:20 am

Taylor it is very obvious that you have had an easy life so far. Mummy and Daddy have paid for your private school education and your university fees and given you a house. You will not have to apply for a job because daddy is giving you his business. That doesn’t sound like “looking after yourself” to me. You sound like a very selfish spoilt young man who enjoys a privileged life but has no thought for other people or for our planet. Money and profit are not the only important things in this world – in fact they are a long way down my list of priorities.

I could go through that list that you wrote before and rip it to pieces. You are repeating a mantra that has no basis in reality. But this one just flabbergasted me. What a ridiculously naïve thing to say.

“If we invest too much in ‘renewable’ energy how we are supposed to keep the fossil fuel electricity companies alive?”

And could you explain what this means please.

“work place relations pendulum will be restored to the sensible centre.” You sound like one of those dolls where you pull the string and they repeat phrases over and over. Do you have any idea of what the unions have done for us over the years?

You also said if the Great Barrier Reef dies it’s not going to affect you. Do you have ANY idea how many businesses are dependent on the reef and how much money it generates in tourism dollars?

Stop being such a selfish little boy and look outside your own little comfortable bubble. You really do not have a clue.

Kaye LeeNovember 28, 2013 at 6:22 am

Oh and while you’re at it…look up patrimony. WE own what the miners are making a fortune from, not them!

Kaye LeeNovember 28, 2013 at 6:59 am

Greeny from Brisbane

” As a professional environmental scientist (ecologist by trade) I find your political based arguments for environmental conservation a load of crap.”

“what a crock of pathetic Labor spiced delusionary commentary. If your Labor/Green coalition heroes were so adamant about preventing climate change through reducing the use of fossil fuels why did they approve the expansion of the Abbot Point Coal Terminal to cater for the opening up of the Galilee Basin coal reserves.”

Seems to me YOU started the “political based” arguments. And as far as I am aware the approval for the expansion for Abbot Point was delayed whilst further environmental studies were done, so lets stick to facts rather than bs shall we.

“Mr Hunt said he had not made any decision on Abbot Point, which is due to be delivered by December 13.”

“The decision to expand Abbot Point Coal terminal has again been delayed as Environment Minister Mark Butler assess the impacts of dredging around the area.”

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/three-month-delay-on-abbot-point-expansion-dec-1

” Check out referral 2008/4648 regarding Hancocks coal project and you will see Tony Burke approved it as the Environment Minister.”

I see that Tony Burke did sign this. Without reading the whole document, I am not certain what stage of approval this was or what conditions still had to be met, but as the articles I linked to before show, final approval had NOT been granted – hence the call from Newman, and the subsequent actions by Hunt.

“have a crack at working out why Labor also approved …..the disposal of large volumes of capital dredge spoil into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.”

I hope you read the article about the “Abbott government’s new cumulative impact strategy for reef protection” which “would make it easier to approve offshore dumping of spoils to expand the Abbot Point coal terminal, 25km north of Bowen.”

Seems to me you don’t actually stick to facts greeny.

“Let the scientists do the talking and the poodle fakers can sit round the fire and sing kumbaya and sip their peppermint teas.”

If you want to be taken seriously then get your facts right. Your abuse adds to the perception that you don’t have a legitimate case.

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 10:33 am

Taylor, I do mot think you are a bad kid. That is if you say is genuine.

The fact that you write here, is proof at least you are thinking, and I am hoping question your belief.
I( can understand where you are cominf from, when one looks at your environment. One where most are successful.

Taylor, most Australians work hard, not always with the sauces your parents have had.

What about your grandparents. Did they work as hard, becoming successful.

Let an old lady give some kind advice.

While at university, do as most of your peers do, get casual work. Work in many fields, away from what you will be doing in the business you take over. Try many things.

Good bosses, need to be a worker first.

When university is finished, do not just roll up to dad’s business. Give your self two or three years, to see how far you can go on your own..Yes work for others , in the same field, if that is what you want.

Get a job, that has nothing to do with friends or family.

This way, you will know better what you are capable of, and have much more to take to that business.

Drop the ideology. At the end of the day, they are only theories.

The wonderful start in life is not enough. You have to contribute your own bit.

Personally, in your case, I move to another City, even state.

Living life by what the parents want, can be a trap. One you will regret down the track.

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 10:45 am

Taylor might be a better exercise to explain capitalism.

NO, socialism is not seen as being transitional economic system

It is more than about the economy. It is about how the economy should serve the society.

There are many types of socialism, as there are capitalism.

Read some history of people who have made it in the world. Not all are millionaires. Most has failures as well as success along the line.

For most, it is about making choices. Yes, even you have choices to make.

It is up to you, whether you take the easy path, you are lucky enough to have at your feet, or go out into the real wold, and make it on your own.

Even if you take that choice,. you already have advantages most do not.

The fact that your parents have kicked you out, on your own,m into the house on the family property, says to me, they are attempting to encourage you to stand on your own feet. Paying rent would be more beneficial.

Shorten now on ABC.

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 10:49 am

Taylor, what does mum say about many of your views? Have you eve voiced them in the home.?

Dan RowdenNovember 28, 2013 at 10:51 am

Fed up,

Taylor, I do mot think you are a bad kid. That is if you say is genuine. The fact that you write here, is proof at least you are thinking, and I am hoping question your belief.

Sadly the content of his Twitter feed suggests otherwise. e.g. “at least Abbott doesn’t lie, is strong, is trustworthy, is competent and is a man of his word.”

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 11:13 am

Taylor, the university year is nearly finished.

Go to the library and take two authors from the book self. Read Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Yes, from both sides of the fence.

Ask the librarian, what titles you should begin with.

Should make the holiday break more productive.

This is only the beginning. There are many more, that you should also read.

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 11:47 am

Senate hearing now on NBN

Kaye LeeNovember 28, 2013 at 11:20 am

For Taylor

Kaye LeeNovember 28, 2013 at 11:22 am

For Taylor

Kaye LeeNovember 28, 2013 at 11:23 am

For Taylor

Kaye LeeNovember 28, 2013 at 11:43 am

For Taylor from Malcolm Turnbull

“Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is “crap” and you don’t need to do anything about it.

Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it, and now the blocking of it.

His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with “Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but…..”

Third, there is a major issue of integrity at stake here and Liberals should reflect very deeply on it. We have an Opposition whose current leadership dismisses the Howard Government’s ETS policy as being just a political ploy. We have an Opposition Leader who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier. And finally we have an Opposition which negotiated amendments to the Rudd Government’s ETS, then reached agreement on those amendments and then, a week later, reneged on the agreement.

Many Liberals are rightly dismayed that on this vital issue of climate change we are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.”

Kaye LeeNovember 28, 2013 at 11:52 am

And Taylor, regarding your comments about the car industry, are you aware that is employs 230,000 either directly or indirectly. Are you aware that the banks and the mining companies get MORE assistance from the government that the car industry does? Why is our government being such a “nanny state” to companies that are making superprofits? Why should mining companies get fuel tax credits resulting in them paying 6c per litre fuel excise while we pay 38c per litre?

“total budgetary assistance to the motor vehicle and parts sector amounted to $620 million.
This compares with $700 million to the mining industry and $914 million to the financial and insurance sector.”

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/union-warns-of-carnage-if-government-ends-car-industry-support-20131127-2yage.html#ixzz2lsWWDsAl

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Dan, I was being generous. Sorry for the spelling mistakes. Half blind.

Maybe Taylor should turn into the senate hearings and see how clever Turnbull’s boy are when it come to the NBN. For experts, they know little.

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Taylor, you can hear these hearings on line. Just go to the parliament site.

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 1:05 pm

Taylor, just curious, what are you studying at university.

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 1:07 pm

NBN board not sure they need information from Telstra, on the state of the copper, to go ahead with their decisions.

Still getting no answers. All taken on notice. No answers coming back.

RoswellNovember 28, 2013 at 1:13 pm

“Flipski”. Now that was worth a laugh. Loved it.

BacchusNovember 28, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Another question for “Taylor”…

What do you think of Tony Abbott’s government funded Paid Parental Scheme?

Kaye LeeNovember 28, 2013 at 1:26 pm

Telstra are fronting the senate committee and Ziggy is saying the copper network is “robust” even though he only has “anecdotal” evidence and no study of the copper network’s viability has been done.

In 2003 – yes, 10 years ago- Telstra fronted a senate committee. At the time, Ziggy was in charge. This is what they said then, TEN YEARS AGO.

“A month ago, before a Senate committee inquiry into broadband competition, Telstra’s Bill Scales and Tony Warren rather let the cat out of the bag.

Warren, group manager, regulatory strategy, told the committee: “I think it is right to suggest that ADSL is an interim technology. It is probably the last sweating, if you like, of the old copper network assets. In copper years, if you like, we are at a sort of transition – we are at five minutes to midnight.”

A few minutes later his boss, Bill Scales, attempted to bury this bit of candour: “The only point of clarification, just so that there is no misunderstanding, is that when we think about the copper network, we are still thinking about 10 years out. So five minutes to midnight in this context . . .”

Dr Warren (chiming in): “Doesn’t mean five years.”

Mr Scales: “It does not. It could be 10 or even 15 years, just to get some context into that.”

Trouble is, in world terms, Telstra is flogging a sick horse, if not quite a dead one, and the world is rapidly moving towards FTTH – including in Australia. TransACT has laid fibre to the home in Canberra; Western Power subsidiary Bright Telecommunications is doing it in Perth.

Telstra’s spin is that it doesn’t know what the future holds. Warren again (to the Senate committee): “I think it is fair to say that everyone is thinking, ‘What’s the next network?’ and a lot of parties are trying to put down bets. Telstra is obviously asking: ‘Which bet do we put down? Is it wireless? Is it satellite? Is it fibre to the home? Is it whatever?’ ”

It’s fibre to the home, Tony. You know it, I know it and Ziggy knows it. But it’ll cost $15 billion to cover Australia, and a third of that will never be economic because of the long distances of fibre with no one connected in between.”

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/11/1071086169962.html

Fed upNovember 28, 2013 at 5:11 pm

We did have an election, did we not.

Fed upNovember 29, 2013 at 10:31 am

Pope Francis has openly attacked capitalism in his recently released Apostolic exhortation, which for all intents and purposes is the Pope’s “manifesto”.

While Francis has called for the radical decentralisation of the Vatican, and decided that gay people are not agents of Satan, it is his outcry against savage capitalism that creates the biggest interest. Much of it could have come from the hand of Karl Marx himself, minus the critique of ideology.

Since his election to the Catholic Church’s highest position in March, Francis has set an example for a more modest lifestyle, living in the Vatican guesthouse and suspending a bishop who spent millions on his luxurious residence. He also chose to be called Francis after Saint Francis of Assisi, who lived a life of poverty. So, is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church finally living up to the teachings of Jesus?

Calling for a more equal society, ……….

https://theconversation.com/pope-francis-prioritises-the-poor-channels-marx-in-new-manifesto-20826?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+email&utm_content=Daily+email+CID_8de95e6be7a52dbd495bc7cf5d4bc7c0&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Pope%20Francis%20prioritises%20the%20poor%20channels%20Marx%20in%20new%20manifesto

Not the first time, that the church has condemned both Capitalism and Communism.

Fed upNovember 29, 2013 at 10:36 am

Bacchus, I am sure that Taylor will all for that PPL.

After all, I am sure he sees a well heeled wife in his future. A woman of calibre, that produces children in calibre. After all, we know it is all in the breeding.

One would expect that Ziggy would be better prepared today, after their performances over the last few days.

It appears he was at a board meeting yesterday, unable to keep up with the evidence, or lack of it, given up to now.

Back to plastic bags. Waffling on about what happens years ago. Seems a little embarrassed.

Fed upNovember 29, 2013 at 10:37 am

Pyne has had a hair cut. Very short. Wonder will it improve his brain power.

More to the StoryNovember 29, 2013 at 12:47 pm

Settle the funk down!! The world is not about to end, the sky is not going to fall down tomorrow, the world has been ending since it created, all this apocalyptic talk has been around since man started communicating and writing scripture. As someone who works in the industry of researching business and future industries, the renewable energy sector is one of the fastest growing industries and will no doubt be future of energy. Massive cultural changes like this do not happen over night and can take generations to be fully implemented. Blaming the end of the world on Liberal voters is simply subjective and totally ridiculous. Global overpopulation is more of a concern to humanity than global warming, but you do not hear people talking much about that though do you?

doctorrob54November 29, 2013 at 3:34 pm

Looks like Taylor has gone bye bye,thank you God.
No one I know or read from will ever say Abbott and crew will destroy the world,how can one give such an insignificant worm that much potency,hardly.But he and his mob in the last two months have managed to ruin years of hard work and sacrifice Labor have accomplished.
As for generations to implement,what does that mean,60,90 120yrs,sorry,but NO,we must start to implement new,clean energy schemes yesterday.I am watching right now a Spin Dr for CSG mining manipulating with peoples minds saying FRACKING term is not used anymore we now refer to it as FRACTURE STIMULATION big difference,NO.Not just that,but also bullshiting how they can drill through aquefiers with”assured minimum damage”.
You go and tell the hundreds of thousands of people whose Island nations will be under water within this generation that it takes generations to change.We have not seen a refugee problem yet.
As for overpopulation,any one to have heard or read David Susuki is well aware and I can assure you many are aware.The suffering and poverty of many in overpopulated areas of nations is a Geo.political issue and a legacy of Western empires and nations due to past and present practices,mainly to satisfy our perceived
needs,I call it wants.
If you are imagining every family in the world in the not to distant future expect to have two cars,flat screen TV,computer,Xbox,etc,etc,well yes that would be a problem and it’s not going to happen.
But people can learn to live together when,elimination of isolation beliefs,redistribution of wealth in a fair a just manner and the elimination to the glorification of greed would be a bloody good start.
I don’t have the time right now to go into it but happy later if you wish,got animals to feed and walk,Cheers.

More to the StoryNovember 29, 2013 at 4:49 pm

I am sorry, but are you suggesting that global warming is only a recent phenomenon? In that island nations have only started disappeared until recent times?? The interesting thing you mention is that it needed to start yesterday and in fact it did, as an example, some of Australia’s biggest government funding into renewable energy came during the Howard years, remember that? The days when we had little to no government debt and could spend more money on important things such as renewable energy project and the future fund.

Renewable energy has been around for over a 100 years, but due to advancement in communication and more public awareness about the dangers of CO2 emissions that was not previously known to the broader public, you will definitely see a continued growth in this sector. I do not classify CSG mining in this sector and made no mention of it, so I do not why you would mention it. Renewable energy is Hydro, Solar and wind and it already makes up as much as 13% of our energy sector and is growing fast. One important thing to note is that it will be the private sector that makes this change to renewable energy happen, primarily the existing energy companies who are actual experts in the field and are also helping to drive the change, so do not be surprised if you still see the likes of BP and Shell dominating the renewable energy sector in 100 years. We need to support these companies, do not forget, they live on this planet too.

As for David Suzuki, yes I do know of his work very well, in fact he raised a lot of the points you mention when he was on Q&A this year. EVEN he stated that what he says is not exact science and just a theory and a point of view he is trying to put forward. Take a look at China, who see the problems with overpopulation and have tried to address their problems whilst being disconnected from the western world and influence. India and even the western world itself experience overpopulations issues, overpopulation helps to drive overconsumption exponentially. Sustainable population should be the true discussion of the day.

As for the idea that every one on this planet will one day have a equal wealth and standard of living, that is a fairy tale and has never happened, will never happen, and it is not possible for the human standpoint. Humanity has evolved in too many different forms for it to be possible, so forget the issue of global equality.

doctorrob54November 30, 2013 at 1:22 am

Stop trying to twist reality and what I am saying,for a start Howard two weeks ago stated he does not believe
humans have any significant affect on CC,and when he said he did it was politically expedient.The first time he ever told a truth.Abbott is his disciple and thinks the same,declared it was crap and still believes it’s crap,
the only difference is Peta Credlin manipulates what he says to try and get him through the day,as he and his prissy mate are trying to do with Gonski.
Don’t start spinning me stories about Howard years and spending money on renewable energy,if I want a story I’ll go to a library.
Yes islands have been swamped,glaciers have been melting,but no where near the rate they are now.
CSG I mentioned to illustrate the extent of manipulation that is happening today,it is worse for the environment than CO2.This is where you will see BP and Shell in the near future.They live on this planet to exploit as much as they can,and in every disaster they hide what they can.And your current Fed. Gov. is spending not one cent on development or research into clean energy,and don’t dare mention Direct Action,sounds good doesn’t it,about as good as Sovereign Border.
This current Gov.wont even encourage research,remember,he shut them down.Now operating independent
on donated funds.
I understand we may never have equality,but we must have a universal or strive for a fair days pay for a fair days work.How is it that in the space age we have in countries paying workers $1/day selling shoes they make for $250 or more,giving a grown man $36/month selling his suits at $2000.Even in the USA the minimum adult wage is $7.25/hour.This is not simply global inequality,this is global corruption and it must be stopped YESTERDAY.

Lyndal BreenNovember 30, 2013 at 12:44 am

I fully agree with your comments. I think the Y2K bug is an unfortunate example which people use to try to illustrate that there was a lot of expert warning but “nothing happened” and this could be extrapolated to climate change. I was working in 1999 using a computer system which could completely crash the whole workplace (a public high school) if any process that included a date beyond 1/1/2000 was done. This was the Y2K bug which really existed. It caused a lot of problems and at first the way round it was to defer work that could cause it. The computer system (the Dept Education’s OASIS system) was replaced about September 1999, and we had no further problems.
The point is that our problem was recognised, and rectified, and that process was repeated everywhere leading up to 2000. Therefore, there was no global collapse of computer systems. Obviously, had the technology not been up-graded and the millions of dollars spent to do this around the world, Y2K would have seen massive disruption/destruction.
In the case of Y2K, the expert warnings were heeded and that is why nothing happened.

doctorrob54November 30, 2013 at 8:23 am

Where are you Ritchie Rich,I cant see you.

More to the StoryNovember 30, 2013 at 12:20 pm

I must admit, for someone insinuating to be a Doctor, you do not develop a good argument. Most of what you have just said is just name calling and immature with no real substance or facts. Except for some minor wage quotes in your final paragraph, but that paragraph just proves you know little about macroeconomics and global currencies. What you say should be done is simply not possible, it’s not global corruption; it’s just macroeconomics at work. Learn your facts, Howard is correct in saying as humans we do not have a significant effect (even the original 1400 scientists from the UN had trouble proving we had an effect at all), but that is beside the point, the fact that we have an effect at all is the problem and thus why we should endeavour to change. Evidence shows that the planet has cooled in recent years compared 10 years ago, or is all this global warming have more to do with the Sun’s natural 11 year cycle than human impact? It will be interesting to see where the global warming debate goes when the current sun spots disappear. If you are wondering what that means (which it seems you will be), when the sun ends its cycle and loses its sunspots, it has a massive effect on Earth’s temperature.

Hence, more to the story and settle down, we are going to be okay and you can go on pretending to be a doctor for many years to come.

Dan RowdenNovember 30, 2013 at 12:52 pm

The current sun spot cycle is actually the calmest for centuries. Of course the Sun has a massive impact on temperature. At the same time it is known that its impact on Global Warming is minimal.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cosmic-rays-not-causing-climate-change

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent

Fed upNovember 30, 2013 at 1:29 pm

“In the case of Y2K, the expert warnings were heeded and that is why nothing happened.’

Same as GFC. The action Labor took, prevented disaster in this country.

Shorten telling it as it is at the moment.

ABC 24

doctorrob54November 30, 2013 at 9:13 pm

Whoever you are, you are wasting my time and effort,Come clean now and be honest,you got me.Haha.
You are Taylor aren’t you.Now bye,bye and please go,I am finished with you,I suggest you and your cashed
up buddies get into mummies Mercedes and head for the city,go paint the town red,Ciao ciao bambino. IO

randalstellaNovember 30, 2013 at 11:20 pm

Taylor,
That God of yours is going to be mighty upset if you continue to make references to “socialism” and “communism” which show you as unread; and unfit to make the comment; and thus reckless with the truth. Scholar of Marx are you? Reads to me like completely ignorant twaddle. A little moral advice. Find out about someone before you make comment on them. Following the rabid pack of ignoramuses gives you no moral excuse.

BadAbitDecember 2, 2013 at 7:33 pm

This rabble have no interest in the future or future generations or indeed the lives of others in poorer countries. The true fact of the matter is they are only interested in keep their obese (gone from fat to obese) mates making more and more profits. The ppl of Oz must now unite and tell this chaotic, lying conniving and tricky govt. that we will not put up with this nonsense like they have done with Gonski. No smart, tricky manipulation of language convinced anyone Abbott, it only convinced us that ur a complete and utter nut case.

doctorrob54December 3, 2013 at 11:32 am

You are totally correct mate,and most new what they were like before the election,even so I was preying for a DD election,but as Dan Rowden pointed out in his post recently so did those who voted for them,and like Dan said,so why would they change their vote now.I agree with Dan I don’t now think many of them would.
What must happen is for those that are not registered,and those that chose not to vote in the last elections
have an attitude change,and realize that all our votes count.I know some,sad to admit even in my own family
that had that attitude,but I can assure you their attitude has now changed and will be participating next time round.Cheers.

lukeforeman13December 8, 2013 at 10:08 pm

Reblogged this on lukeforeman13's Blog.

doctorrob54December 26, 2013 at 9:38 pm

Quit prepared to leave the dick sucking to you and your pet poodle dog breath.
So trying to make a more healthy environment hurts industry does it.Closing auto plant to save an extra $150 million a year with the total eventual retrenchment of 200.000+ jobs is beneficial to industry is it.
I could go on but realize people like yourself that are unable to put three intelligent lines together are a waste of time,and arrogant enough to assume you are in the minority and hence,you don’t matter.
Now you just get comfortable in front of your Fox TV,lick and suck you pet poodles dick,and leave the hard work to the adults,y’hear? 🙂

Coachman on the BoxMarch 23, 2015 at 11:25 am

I did not vote for Abbott. I am not entirely convinced of the seriousness of human induced climate change, but I’m well aware that I may be wrong. However I do think it’s well past the time to clean up our planet, the only one we have and the one that I, like you, Victoria will leave to my now grown-up children. That’s why I march in support of real action to make this, our home, a better place to live. It matters not whether it’s reducing CO2 emissions, or clearing the billions of tons of petrochemical based plastic waste from the oceans, or protecting rainforests and their inhabitants against industrial palm oil producers, or arguing for and promoting renewables against the dinosaur fossil-fuel lobby at every opportunity, fighting tooth and nail against the criminal obscenity of fracking. We should all be doing it all because once it’s gone, the planet’s gone. And whatever you think, or believe, or preach, or rant and rave about, isn’t it better to do it in a place where we’re not gasping for breath, or fighting for clean water, or struggling to provide the basic needs for our loved ones in the face of overwhelming greed by an global, unelected plutocracy? I think so. So whatever my personal thoughts, I’m in this for the future.

Return to home page

The rise and rise of the right

Australia’s Sovereignty: Navigating a Geopolitical Dilemma

There'll Always Be An England, Even If There…

Get out the vote

Emergency leaders say nuclear reactors pose unnecessary risk

No aid or access as Israel intensifies its…

Ironic Dependency: Russian Uranium and the US Energy…

Donald Trump's quick trip to absolute dictatorship

An Open Letter to Abbott voters

Like this:

Related Articles

430 comments

Leave a Reply

Union calls for Julie Bishop to be sacked from ANU…

Angry America

Share this:

Like this:

Related Articles

430 comments

Leave a Reply