Law & Order, Mars and Why Tony Abbott is Right To Put Science Under The Industry Portfolio.
“I have a great idea for reducing the crime rate!”“What is it?”“Well, when someone is caught breaking the law, rather than wasting a lot of money on a trial and jailing them – which is also very expensive – we just give them a large amount of money and tell them not do it again!”“But wouldn’t that lead to people breaking the law and handing themselves in, just to get the money?”“Oh the money wouldn’t go to everyone. Just the big criminals.”“All right, once they’ve got the money what’s the penalty if they break the law again?”“None.”“None?”“Yep, we’re more into carrots than sticks.”“That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard!”“Ok, well what about my idea for reducing our carbon emissions?”“You mean the one where you pay the biggest polluters to reduce their emissions and if they don’t you just say that’s ok?”“Yep.”“Oh, that’s fine. That sounds like an excellent idea.”
Mm, we don’t seem to be hearing a lot about Tony Abbott’s Direct Action Plan. You know, the one that’s supposed to replace the Carbon Tax. A Google search reveals several mentions but the only recent one is in an editorial from that foreign owned newspaper, “The Australian” which begins with the rather contradictory concept.
“AUSTRALIA’s ill-fated carbon tax has proved to be a more successful tool of political rather than carbon abatement, felling spectacularly the party leaderships of Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Rudd, and Julia Gillard. Well intentioned in theory, it was in practice a hopelessly premature step for a country that emits around 1.5 per cent of global carbon dioxide and whose competitiveness had long rested on cheap energy. The tax boosted power prices for households and business without altering the carbon intensity of their energy supply. It has hastened the deindustrialisation of Australia’s economy, including the collapse of the aluminium and car industries, without a scintilla of verifiable impact on global carbon emissions, let alone the climate.”
I can’t see how the deindustrialisation of Australia’s economy hasn’t led to some fall in our emissions. And considering we were told by other members of Murdoch Misinformation Media about pensioners sitting in the dark with the heater off because they couldn’t afford electricity any more, it seems hard to believe that bigger users hadn’t found ways to improve their energy efficiency. But it’s good to know that our competitiveness rests on cheap energy and not cheap wages, as has been suggested by the IPA. (Or rather cheap minimum wages. I haven’t heard anyone from the IPA suggesting that Tim Wilson’s $300,000 is an excessive amount. Or even using it as example of a waste of taxpayers’ money.)
Still when the paper talks about “verifiable”, it’s important to remember that they’re not using that in a scientific way, because a debate like this is too important to be left to scientists. We need input from every day people. Like the Senator from Kentucky (Brandon Smith) that was suggesting that climate change wasn’t man-made because there are no coal mines on Mars, and:
“I don’t want to get into the debate about climate change. But I will just simply point out that I think that in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that.”
Well, a scientist might, but we know that they’re just a minority group and the silent majority are sick and tired of pandering to minority groups. So “verifiable” in this sense has nothing to do with science. It simply means that something can be found in one of their newspapers about a reduction in Australia’s emissions. And, of course, it can’t .
As for what the editorial said about Direct Action:
“And Environment Minister Greg Hunt has the hazardous task of overseeing its untried replacement, an unloved $2.5 billion direct action fund cobbled together to burnish the Coalition’s climate credentials in early 2010. Ensuring this money leads to genuine carbon abatement rather than becoming yet another form of industry assistance — subsidising green projects that would have proceeded anyway — will be challenging.”
So, even the usual cheerleaders of the Abbott Government are calling direct action “unloved”. Poor thing. We should remember it on Valentine’s Day and send it a card and some flowers.
And I would, except I don’t know where to send them because it doesn’t exist yet.
Ah well, maybe by 14th February!
590 total views, 1 views today
3 commentsLogin here Register here
Logic is truly only in the realm of the Left as in the Right it`s called irony.
Loved the Big criminal vs the Big polluter analogy because it`s so true and the totally braindead RWNJ`s can`t work out how we can all see this so easily,Sheesh
C’mon Ross, don’t you understand that the profit margins of big polluters are sacrosanct. Nothing may be done by government that impinges upon their ability to make larger and larger profits, or like the naughty children they are, they will pack-up their destructive business and take their filthy pollution somewhere else, and we wouldn’t want that would we?
One only had to look at the stink they kicked-up at the prospect of a carbon tax. Rather than change their activities and adopting energy efficiencies (like everyone else has) – thereby avoiding the tax, they instead declared that they would pass along the costs to the consumers.
Instead of challenging or legislating to prevent this gouging, the government meekly decided to hand consumers compensation for the price increases.
So they still managed to maintain their massive profits without being forced to act in any way – yet they are still crying like babies about how badly they have been treated.
Still lying about the carbon tax I see. Abbott and Co lied about the carbon tax adding $450 to the price of a new car.
Holden themselves stated “An example is the carbon tax, which has a cost impact of approximately $45 per locally made Holden vehicle but is not passed on to customers.”
They also said – “Holden also pays duty on imported parts for its locally made cars, which adds a price disadvantage of up to $300 per vehicle against competitor products which are imported
duty free from countries such as Thailand with which Australia has a free trade agreement.”
Scroll down to document page 14 of 42.