Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matt Thompson on February 2, 2010 at 4:17pm

Here is what I sent.

With all due respect, we are deeply disappointed in this policy. In November and December, an unprecedented groundswell moved to bring the Liberal party back to its founding principles best articulated in “Liberal Party Beliefs” on the Liberal party home page. This policy announcement is a direct slap in the face to all grass roots supporters of the liberal party that forced the recent change in leadership. We believed the new leadership was going to support the founding principles of the party, not the falsified theory of Al Gore.



It is now clear that the new leadership of the party misunderstood the voices that brought it in to the leadership. Government controls or incentives on carbon emissions are wrong in ANY form. They are based on falsified science. They are destructive, and serve only to empower the cancerous growth of bureaucracy. We believe this policy announced today is in direct contradiction to the founding beliefs of the Liberal Party.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Fitzgerald on February 2, 2010 at 4:18pm

Exactly Matt - Tony Abbott is trying to have a bit each way to appease the swinging voters. I guess he doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to come out and say NO ! to the ETS - the whole thing is a scam. Throw it all out and lets get on with life.

This is just like the Y2K bug here

NOTHING HAPPENED

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by greg rauchle on February 2, 2010 at 7:18pm

Unless the Liberal Party TOTALLY AND UTTERLY REJECTS THIS GLOBAL WARMING CON, they will not be receiving my vote, my families nor my friends.

We could NOT vote for a party that supports a SWINDLE!

I guess the only options are The National Party or Independants.

The Liberals have thrown away a prime opportunity for a landslide victory in the next election by their pigheadedness.

They need to wake up to the truth.

The rest of the world has, as well as the Australian voters!

Sad really for long time Liberal supporters like us!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Thompson on February 2, 2010 at 7:22pm

I now believe that Dr. Dennis Jensen should become the leader of the Liberal party. He could save them from self destruction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laurel Ender on February 2, 2010 at 9:34pm

YES! I will be looking National for the first time ever. and so will a lot of the areas Farmers too.
Tony Abbott has missed it entirely.
trying to not upset? the warmies.. uh.
silly fella.
how could he Not realise theres a hell of a lot of us out here who will only vote for a non Carbon Fraud party??

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dinah Aram on February 2, 2010 at 9:44pm

I haven't read this attachment yet but just wanted to say that I saw him on 7.30 Report tonight and he was less than impressive. He definitely came across as wanting to have an each way bet on climate change (and that was what I was thinking before I even read the suggestion on your post!)
He did manage to say ONCE that carbon dioxide was an environmental enhancer and not a pollutant but he could have had about 4 more opportunities to say it again with Kerry O'Brien's questioning but he didn't. I thought his address to Adelaide's Young Libs last week was far more inspiring! If only he had come across with the same confidence tonight on the ABC......groan :(

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dinah Aram on February 2, 2010 at 9:49pm

Well, I just took the 30 seconds to read it. Hmmmm and ho hum.
Wishy washy is the only way I can describe it. So sad. I suppose the positive side it that it will be incentive-driven as opposed to penalty-driven.
Tony Abbott has unfortunately come across in my mind as a softer version of Malcolm Turnbull. This is truly not good! IMO this is a conundrum for those that want to make a difference.

I wish Barnaby Joyce was leading the opposition! There would be no dishwater to deal with LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan May on February 2, 2010 at 10:33pm

Yes it's disappointing that CO2 is still the villain, but perhaps there is strategy here - letting everyone think what they want until the royal commission discovers that CO2 is not the enemy? At least the policies that I think they are setting up will be easy to adjust to REAL pollutants, and there is also scope there for the development of emerging technology - like hydrogen powered vehicles and more efficient photovoltaic cells. It's probably not a bad first step. There still seems to be a lot of people around who have been trained to think that Carbon is the enemy - and so this policy can start them on the journey to discovering otherwise... All this is just guessing - but it's probably what I would do, even though I am totally and passionately opposed to the majority of IPCC findings and recommendations and think that Al Gore is a complete clown who needs to be put in jail for fraud.
The thing is that if we are to have any hope, we must be united in our stand. All non-labour must pull together and embrace our differences. Otherwise we're in for another term of KRudd and Gillard and Wrong with all the terrible self-seeking, nation destroying policy that they love.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dinah Aram on February 2, 2010 at 11:22pm

In my mind, we need to oppose anyone that suports AGW. So, that means needing to know the stance of every candidate in my/your electorate and if they even slighly approve of AGW then they are out in the next election!. And they need to know what I /we think now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ray Jamieson on February 2, 2010 at 11:25pm

Jonathon,
I'm with you here too mate! Whilst I OUTRIGHT REJECT any notion of CO2 being a pollutant, this is a step in the right direction. But perhaps it's like sterring the big ocen liner - gently and continually. Earlier today I suggested this was "initial" policy and it was still 6-9 months til the election. In that time, we have:
Climategate and the legal action
Glaciergate and Pachauri legal action
Peter Spencer on the circuit
Lord Monckton on the circuit
Huge volumes of research underway into the "truth" and a momentum swing against AGW.

I am prepared to accept this as an inital step, bearing in mind that the pressure will be maintained on Tony Abbott to progressively remove CO2 as an element of the polluting emissions, and to redirect the fight to focus on real pollutants instead.

The rest of the statement is not strong, but again, early. I'm hoping that Barnaby will get into it with a whip and straighten it up, make it work a little better, before the policy goes to the ballot box!

What I DO like? The soil carbon initiative. Why? It is a recognition of the critical importance and value of the farming community in saving the planet from the bloody green ratbags!

Let's keep up the pressure to let Tony Abbott know he is there by the grace of our pressure, and we will let him stay only as long as he delivers on what was promised! If he doesn't deliver, we don't need him there anymore...
Ray Jamieson

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Janet H. Thompson on February 2, 2010 at 11:46pm

Hello, Mates. For the record, here is my (admittedly and apologetically very long) assessment of the policy. I'm against bigger government, and that's what the Coalition gave us toward the end of Howard, and that's what this policy gives us. For what it's worth....

Background
The Coalition today released its “Direct Action Policy” meant to deal with climate change and meeting Tony Abbott’s commitment to a 5% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.

Prior to November 2009, Australia had never seen a significant, nation-wide grassroots movement. In response to the Rudd Government putting up the CPRS legislation a second time, and realising that we were on the cusp of passing an economy- and lifestyle-changing bill, the SILENT MAJORITY found our voice.

Major upheavals resulted in Malcolm Turnbull losing his leadership position, and the Coalition, under its new leader, Tony Abbott, opposed outright Rudd’s ill-named Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Many of us were disappointed when Tony Abbott did not slay the “CO2 is a Pollutant” monster immediately upon his ascendancy to the leadership role. He committed the Coalition to the 5% reduction target in his first press conference. We mere voters were reassured that we should not worry, though. It would not be a “massive new tax on everything” like Rudd’s plan.

Summary

That might be true. But the policy that has just been released, contrary to the excellent platform of the Liberal Party, increases the size of government. Counter to the Liberal Party’s principles, this policy increases government involvement and control in individuals’ lives. Against what most of the Party base wants, this policy spends more money on consulting, and studies, and grants, and subsidies. Most importantly, contrary to all evidence that proves otherwise, this policy assumes that Al Gore’s gospel is correct.

Analysis
Within the document, The Coalition brags about what they have done in the past to increase the size of government under the “environment” banner.

The Coalition established the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund to support these projects:

$75 million toward a $420 million project to build a 154MW solar concentrator in regional Victoria;
$50 million toward a $360 million pilot for a brown-coal drying and post-combustion carbon dioxide capture and storage project that will reduce CO2 emissions and potentially be retrofitted to other generators in the LaTrobe Valley;
$60 million to support the world’s largest CO2 capture and storage project in Western Australia that will reduce CO2 emission by approximately 3 million tonnes per annum;
$75 million to the Fairview power project which will extract methane from coal-seams to power a 100MW power station; and
$50 million for a world-first oxy-fuel demonstration project that will store approximately 30,000 tonnes of carbon over three years.

The Coalition also invested more than $450 million in technologies to reduce emissions from coal activities.

Surely the Coalition could assess what these investments have yielded, and then give way to markets furthering any changes in energy sources. The Coalition could then crow about how effective the seed money was. (If the seed money was NOT effective, then that is a good reason to not throw good money after bad.)

A few excerpts from the Direct Action Policy were enough to make my stomach turn and my heart plummet:

The Emissions Reduction Fund will use the existing National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme (NGERS) to determine proposed emissions reductions beyond overall base levels already determined for individual firms.

This entire paragraph smacks of largesse and unequal application of rules. How about setting minimum standards for air pollution and measuring ALL businesses against those standards?

Through the Fund, the Coalition will call for tenders for projects that will:
1. reduce CO2 emissions;
2. deliver additional practical environmental benefits;
3. not result in price increases to consumers;
4. protect Australian jobs; and
5. not otherwise proceed without Fund assistance.

I’m a bit of an old-school economist, I suppose, but I have never got my head around how we can REDUCE CO2 emissions without increasing costs to consumers. Prices are not equal to costs, you say? Increase taxes to pay for this, or increase money supply to fund it, which leads to higher interest rates…either way, prices will go up.

Businesses that reduce their emissions below their individual baseline (‘historic average’) will be able to offer this CO2 abatement for sale to the government. This will provide businesses with a direct financial incentive to take direct action to reduce their CO2 emissions below their baseline levels.

Small businesses and other entities not covered by NGERS will be able to participate on an ‘opt-in’ basis.

Unlike Labor’s emissions trading scheme, businesses will not be penalised for continuing to operate at ‘business as usual’ levels.

Businesses that undertake activity with an emissions level above their ‘business as usual’ levels will incur a financial penalty. The value of penalties will be on a sliding scale at levels commensurate with the size of the business and the extent to which they exceed their ‘business as usual’ levels.

The value of the penalties will be set in consultation with industry.

Provision will be made to ensure penalties will not apply to new entrants or business expansion at ‘best practice.’

1. The potential for government/corporate collusion and corruption with such a loose plan is significant.
2. Is “business as usual” bad for the environment? Will it negatively affect people’s health? If so, then let’s take action to eliminate the problem. If not, then we do not need a policy that says we’ll do nothing. Doing nothing would suffice.
3. The potential for businesses – small and large – milking this system is huge. When the government steps into a market, we suddenly have many people providing a good or service that they had never even considered before. (I beg you to hearken back to the government-subsidised insulation scheme.)
4. The cost of verifying baseline emissions, let alone changes in those emissions, will be huge and unnecessary, given that CO2 is not a pollutant in the first place.
5. Definition of “best practice” is dangerous. Government is not qualified to define it, competitors are likely not unbiased in defining it, and an individual business owner will be considered to have a vested interest in defining it. I reiterate: set minimum standards for air pollution and measure ALL businesses against those standards.

A Coalition Government will establish an expert body to assess tenders and make recommendations on activities to be supported by the Emissions Reduction Fund.

It is important that the Liberal Party adhere to basic principles. Specifically, I see the above as being contra to the first stated belief on the Liberal Party’s website: “…we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.” Why do we need an expert body to assess tenders and make recommendations on activities to be supported by the Emissions Reduction Fund? Why don’t we set minimum standards for air pollution and measure ALL businesses against those standards, and let market prices determine which technologies get developed and adopted?

The single largest opportunity for CO2 emissions reduction in Australia is through bio-sequestration in general, and in particular, the replenishment of our soil carbons. It is also the lowest cost CO2 emissions reduction available in Australia on a large scale.

Significantly improving soil carbons also helps soil quality, farm productivity and water efficiency, and should be a national goal regardless of the CO2 abatement benefits.

One of the reasons that agriculture was exempted from most discussions of emissions trading schemes around the world is that measurement of soil carbon sequestration is nigh on impossible. Quoting groups like the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists makes my skin crawl. These parasites are professionals at milking Government programs. Our own peak industry organisations have capitulated on this entire climate change debate, and have been spending taxpayer money as well as our own producer dollars chasing a solution to a non-problem. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and to expend resources (time, money, brains) in this vein only takes resources away from solutions to real problems, such as continuing to feed the world.

If significantly improving soil carbons helps soil quality, farm productivity and water efficiency, then the first people to pursue carbon sequestration will be farmers. The Government need not incent them to do so. So promoting this as “well, it doesn’t matter if CO2 is a pollutant or not, this is good for farmers” simply does not fly. If the Liberal Party believes in individual liberty and markets, this entire topic – which is the crux of the whole policy – is unnecessary.

Through the Emissions Reduction Fund a Coalition Government will commit to a ‘once in a century’ replenishment of our national soils and farmlands.

Please do not insult our farmers like this. Our freehold soils and farmlands are in better shape than they have ever been. To imply that the Government is going to do farmers a big favour here is disingenuous. What’s more, it sounds like a used car dealer saying, “Move quickly! This offer is good for two hours only!”

In general, this policy takes Government involvement in agricultural production to new levels. I’m reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s warning, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” Some will say that this policy does not insert Government into agriculture, because farmers can choose whether or not to “sell” their sequestration to the Government. Directly, this is true. But indirectly, this policy distorts the markets and causes farmers to make decisions based on “farming the policy” rather than what makes economic sense for their own production program. In addition, it uses taxpayer money to distort that market.

The dominance of coal as Australia’s primary energy source is the principal reason that Australia’s CO2 emissions are higher per capita than in many other countries.

This is a slap in the face of our efficient and ever-improving coal industry and coal-fired power plants. Our coal resources and coal-fired power should be a source of pride for Australia. Instead, the Coalition insists on moving us away from a very efficient electricity source for our country, and into less efficient and more costly forms of power generation. Shame!

Through the Emissions Reduction Fund, a Coalition Government will make incentives available for the oldest and most inefficient power stations to reduce their emissions in an orderly manner which protects jobs, electricity prices and Australia’s energy security.

The Coalition will work with the electricity sector on the design of potential assistance that could be provided through the Fund to ensure both fairness and cost parity for consumers.

Support from the Fund will only be considered if appropriate guarantees are received in relation to jobs, energy security, and electricity prices.

How about setting minimum standards for air pollution and measuring ALL businesses against those standards? And if a business is truly an ugly polluter, and they cannot meet those minimum standards, then sorry! They will not be able to give assurances in relation to jobs, energy security or electricity prices.

The Coalition recognises the potential for clean energy to underpin future employment growth in key regional areas.

In addition to potential support to be provided from the Emissions Reduction Fund, we will provide $60 million to develop the La Trobe Valley, Hunter and Central Queensland regions as Clean Energy Employment Hubs to drive additional clean energy research and development.

These ‘Clean Energy Hubs’ will support the identification and attraction of new employment opportunities to assist the transformation of local coal industry jobs transformation to clean energy jobs.

Details on the establishment of these Clean Energy Hubs will be determined in close cooperation with local business and community leaders from each region.

How were La Trobe Valley, Hunter and Central Queensland regions chosen for this splash of government money? Surely this is eons away from the market principles espoused in Liberal philosophy. In this same vein, sustainable employment can be driven ONLY by industries that are providing goods or services in response to true demand. We cannot “create” green jobs. Also, leaving details to business and community leaders from each region is interesting. How cool to obtain the power to decide how part of $60 million gets spent without having to invest anything yourself! Once again, this provides fertile ground for corruption.

Through the Emissions Reduction Fund, direct action taken on soil carbons will play a major role, delivering an estimated CO2 emissions reduction of 85 million tonnes of the 140 million tonnes required in 2020 for Australia to achieve its five per cent CO2 emissions reduction target.

In addition, further direct action to reduce CO2 emissions will be required to meet the 2020 target.

There is a wide range of other activity that could be supported by the Emissions Reduction Fund to deliver the additional emissions reductions needed to achieve the 2020 target. These include, but are not limited to, those outlined below.

The policy paper goes on to list several other sources of CO2 reductions that are possible prior to 2020. The price of all of the others (per tonne of CO2), however, is more than the price for soil sequestration. Why not just pay the farmers $10 per tonne for the entire amount of 140 million tonnes, and be done with it?

Submissions to the Coalition from farm groups support the potential for a minimum 150 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum to be captured in soil carbons by 2020 and beyond, with a payment to farmers of approximately $10 per tonne.

Of course, it’s all pie in the sky, because if our economy grows (as we hope it will), the target of cutting 140 million tonnes of CO2 emissions from our economy by 2020 will be meaningless.

Conclusion
In the interest of brevity, I will refrain from going through each of the listed additional activities that could reduce CO2 emissions.

The important points to take, in summary, are:

• CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and the sooner the Liberal leadership states this unequivocally, the sooner they will win the trust of the Australian people, and the sooner they will be elected to represent those people.

• Developing a climate change policy is passé. Given all the information that has come to light in the last 3 months as it relates to Climategate, in addition to the scientific evidence that human emissions of CO2 are insignificant to the earth’s climate, we are wasting precious time and energy in pursuit of policies that aim to reduce carbon dioxide (or, indeed, any greenhouse gas).

• If we have true problems of pollution in Australia, then let us deal with them – directly and equitably. Let’s not pursue a policy in which they are stated as convenient side-benefits.

• Let us always err on the side of individual liberty and trust that the sum of all individual market decisions will take our country in a direction with which we are all comfortable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Janet H. Thompson on February 2, 2010 at 11:58pm

Yep, James, we need to remember that Peter Spencer's saga began under John Howard. It does not matter WHO increases the size of Government. We all suffer in the long run. You should be concerned about that soil carbon section. As I stated above, "Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread." (Jefferson was as prolific as Churchill for quotable quotes!)

Many will say I am making too much of this. Even with the facts at hand, many people still say the same thing about all climate change sceptics. My caution lights are flashing and warning bells are ringing.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page