Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

Coalition policy looks like fairyland economics too

Greg Hunt tried to explain the Coalition policy on coal power stations on the 7:30 Report last night. It wasn’t a good look. This is what happens when they deny the science telling us that there is no need to reduce CO2. That’s a harsh criticism, because they are closer to reality than the ALP, but ultimately, as long as they say “we need to reduce CO2 by 2020″, and “the science is settled” they are stuck trying to move the immovable mountain.

Chris Uhlmann does a good job trying to fill in the gaps in the reasoning, and Greg Hunt looks silly denying the obvious. Coal provides the cheapest source of energy around, so if we replace it with anything else there will be extra costs. Hunt keeps waving the magic fairyland contradictory combination of “we’ll only use the cheapest alternative” and “we won’t do anything to raise costs.”

Chris Uhlmann The real problem here is that the Coalition are not free to speak about a science theory. Each time they step slightly outside the politically-correct-line they are bullied and derided, which would be fine if it was just by the Greens, but isn’t fine when it includes most of the media too.

It’s difficult for the Coalition — before they can speak freely, they have to conquer the bullying and name-calling, and shame those who use kindergarten tactics to silence debate. Strangely, that’s much harder than understanding climate science.

Until then, we get these kinds of bizarre exchanges where Hunt appears to say there is a free lunch and the Coalition can find it.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Richardson on May 26, 2011 at 8:36pm

The Liberal Party needs to get rid of this Stupid Lying Traitor "Greg Hunt".

He is a disgrace to his fellow Australians !!

He has Zero Scientific Qualifications and is either being deliberately misleading or is just ignorant !

I would like to know what financial interests he has in carbon trading companies.......

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Richardson on May 26, 2011 at 8:37pm

Biography - Greg Hunt MP

http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/AboutGreg/biography.aspx

Nope !

No Scientific Qualifications there !

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Richardson on May 27, 2011 at 7:50am

http://barnabyisright.com/2010/04/28/rudd-destroys-his-ministers-be...

There is plenty of evidence to strongly suggest the true reason why Malcolm Turnbull really “believed” in an emissions trading scheme.

Simply take the time to review the history of the HIH collapse. Consider the highly questionable role that Goldman Sachs Australia – of whom Malcolm Turnbull was chairman at the time – had to play in this, the biggest corporate failure in Australian history.

Consider the subsequent $500 million lawsuit brought against the key players in the HIH collapse… including named defendant Malcolm Turnbull.

Consider that only a few years after the collapse of HIH, even as those legal proceedings were being prepared, Malcolm Turnbull’s (again, questionable) takeover from Peter King as the Liberal candidate for the seat of Wentworth gave him a ready made entrance into Parliament in 2004. Consider his rapid elevation to the key role of … Environment Minister. Followed by the first suggestion that the Howard Government should adopt an ETS.

Consider the revelation only a short time later that then Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull was to be spared from appearing in court as a defendant in that $500 million lawsuit. Why?

Because his former employer Goldman Sachs had made a “confidential” settlement on his behalf.

Finally, consider which massive international banking power has been behind all the great bubbles in modern history – and is again behind the global drive for a new derivatives-based trading bubble, the likes of which the world has never seen.

It hardly takes a rocket scientist to put two + two together.

Malcolm Turnbull, the former Goldman Sachs chairman, named co-defendant, and beneficiary of a “confidential” settlement by his former employer, “believed” so strongly in Australia having an emissions trading scheme for a very good reason indeed.

But I personally harbour the gravest of doubts that “saving the planet” had anything whatsoever to do with it…

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 28 April 2010:

“My heart actually felt for Minister Wong being dragged through the public teeth pulling exercise on radio this morning explaining that the Labor Party no longer has a carbon reduction scheme of any sort,” said Senator Barnaby Joyce. “In fact, it is now apparent that the only scheme likely to get up at the next election is the Coalitions as the Labor Party does not have a CPRS policy. Mr Rudd has yet again destroyed another one of his colleagues by revealing his lack of a political soul and his mercenary ambivalence that puts polls over statesmanship.”

“How can he possibly hold any credibility when he publicly denies the fundamental tenant of his political faith so illustriously espoused at the previous election? Mr Rudd has jettisoned the ETS as one would put aside a paper plate at a picnic.”

“One can now see that at least Malcolm Turnbull, although he had a view I fervently disagreed with on the ETS, was willing to put his job on the line because he believed it was right*. Likewise, Brendan Nelson. I don’t believe Tony Abbott is going to change his view to be in favour of an ETS because the polls say so, or Ron Boswell for that matter.”

“Mr Rudd is a philosophical soldier of fortune who chameleon like uses faux earnestness as a key tool of deception. He has made Peter Garrett completely recant all his former beliefs, he has handed Combet his ceiling insulation problems in a modern version of the ‘loaded dog’, and now he is piece by piece dissembling the belief structure of Penny Wong. Why? Because the poll monster told him to do so. Mr Rudd is a political bric-a-brac shop of kitsch philosophies – overpriced, under planned and dispensed at will.”

More Information- Jenny Swan 0746 251500

UPDATE:

Post reorganised to lead with Turnbull/Goldman connection, followed by Barnaby’s media release.

UPDATE 2:

Interesting. Less than a month after announcing his intention to retire from politics, Turnbull changes his mind.

Or should that be, has it changed for him.

(There are numerous anecdotal reports that Turnbull’s “overseas” trip was for a meeting with Goldman Sachs in NY)

UPDATE 3 - 19 May 2011:

h/t Twitterer wakeup2thelies -

@BarnabyisRight Thats a fantastic write up Head of CSIRO also Fmr director of Aus arm of of Rothschild 2001-03 resume http://bit.ly/mqpJx9

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Richardson on May 27, 2011 at 7:51am

Deutsche Bank *really* wants us to trade carbon - THE JOE HOCKEY CONNECTION........

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/deutsche-bank-really-want-us-to-tr...

VERY INTERESTING THAT JOE HOCKEY WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ETS AS WELL AS TURNBULL, PROBABLY BECAUSE HOCKEY’S WIFE, MELISSA, IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE HEAD OF GLOBAL FINANCE & FOREIGN EXCHANGE FOR AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND AT DEUTSCHE BANK, SO JOE KNOWS ALL ABOUT THE $$$$$$$ THAT CAN BE GENERATED BY THIS ETS POLICY.

MAYBE JOE HOCKEY SHOULD BE CALLED THE "MINISTER FOR DEUTSCHE BANK".....

Six months ago, Deutsche Bank was overcome with concern about the planet—bless its soul–and launched this 70 ft. vision of climate doom opposite Madison Square Gardens, New York. You can feel relieved. The bank paid for the carbon credits (no doubt through one of its own funds), so the 40,960 low-energy light-emitting diodes are “carbon-neutral.”

Kevin Parker for Deutsche Asset Management said: “We hope with this sign that it is going to foster a sense of urgency about the problem, raise public awareness, create a need for education and really spur a call for action”

Spurring action indeed. “Sign Copenhagen; Sign Cap N Trade; Give us that $2 trillion dollar market based on meaningless paper permits, and funded by consumers everywhere. Please!”

In a more candid moment, Parker said: “Well, what we’d like to see is a price on carbon. That is absolutely foremost in everyone’s minds involved in the climate change debate. The governments around the world have to get on with regulations…”

Yes, the real agenda is the legislation: forced payments from citizens. We all know we aren’t going to see the Deutsche Bank Top-Soil Clock coming soon highlighting the problem of erosion, or the Deutsche Bank Falling Fish Stock Clock…or the Deutsche Bank program to save the spotted quoll.

In a brazen ambit, Parker suggested we all might like to invest more in renewable energy: $45 trillion more (over 40 years), and that’s only going to solve half the problem”. There is no end to the audacity.

Is this anything other than blatant advertising for a Cap N Trade scheme? Ponder if Exxon launched a similar billboard with the “costs” of carbon mitigation, it would be vandalized, scorned, and disparaged even by august associations like the Royal Society.

A NASA official would call for corporate heads to be jailed for crimes against humanity.

It’s ok for bankers managing $695 billion-dollar funds to take sides in a science debate…. That’s not the same as corporations trying to influence policy.

A Handy Deutsche Bank Widget is also available.

You, too, can add a piece of moving propaganda to your site to let people know just how much bankers really want us to trade carbon…

“We believe that enabling all web site operators to easily display the Carbon Counter ahead of the Copenhagen summit will continue to raise awareness of this very serious issue,” said Kevin Parker, Global Head of DeAM and member of Deutsche Bank’s Group Executive Committee. “Major global investment is essential to preventing catastrophic climate change, and it is imperative for governments to build the regulatory and policy frameworks that accommodate and encourage that investment. We are hopeful that world leaders will make significant strides in that direction in Copenhagen.”

www.know-the-number.com

Our Climate is Changing!

http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_swf/embed-widget.swf

Go on, click on that widget. Wonder how long it will be before the dollars in the carbon market tallies up to be more than the mega-tonnes of gas.

You can see the bank officials launch the carbon counter and stand in the rain, telling everyone there will be even more rain like this in flood-prone NY in the New World…

http://www.youtube.com/v/0Vh6I8shvdQ

So exactly what does it count?

The “Number” on the Carbon Counter is based on measurements developed by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) that include all long-lived greenhouse gases covered under the Kyoto and Montreal Protocols (24 gases excluding ozone and aerosols).

According to the IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 379ppm in 2005. The estimate of total CO2-eq concentration in 2005 for all long-lived GHGs is about 455ppm

Global carbon goes up and down on a seasonal basis, but it wouldn’t help if people saw the numbers fall for months on end, so they’ve “helpfully” made it seasonal (though wrong), so punters don’t get confused.

The next time DeSmog tries to paint Big Oil as the nasty guys influencing policy with money, you can ask how many 70ft live ticker billboards the skeptics control in New York.

BTW: If you are interested in carbon emissions trading markets, you can download a Market Insights Report from SBI for only $3,995.00. (And for another $800 they’ll post you a hard copy to go with that.)

There are no arguments that stop religious believers, but as I said in October, it only takes six words to slow down the dutiful supporters: Banks Want Us To Trade Carbon.

Since when were banks “environmental”?

…

About: Deutsche Asset Management

With approximately $695 billion in assets under management globally as of September 2009, Deutsche Bank’s Asset Management division is one of the world’s leading investment management organizations, not just in size, but in quality and breadth of investment products, performance and client service. The Asset Management division provides a broad range of investment management products across the risk/return spectrum.

The company, as of March 2009, has about $4 billion under management involving climate change. Its assets include renewable energy projects in Europe and as well as a climate change fund that invests in companies involved in clean technology, energy efficiency and environmental management.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rae Billett on May 27, 2011 at 5:46pm

Is it true that when Rudd signed Kyoto the deal was that if a carbon tax or an emissions tax was not introduced then Australian would be fined 20 BILLION by the UN?

If so how would they collect this amount of money if the carbon tax did not go through. This is supposed to be a toothless tiger organisation. How would they collect the fine, by threat of embargoes?

If this were so, that is a reasonable scenario for all the politicians trying to push this bloody tax on the people of this country regardless of the pain it will cause.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Richardson on May 27, 2011 at 9:06pm

Rae, that sounds highly dubious to me.

It's more about money power and control.

Stealing our money and Power and Control over our lives.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laurel Ender on June 2, 2011 at 12:26am

in the copenhagen docs there was a hidden section.

in it there were fines for non payment of agreed percentages of GDP from signatory countries.

started low like 1.7% but rose annually. a massive sum to go to?

well basically the UN who then controlled and apportioned it out to the needy third worlders..

in theory

what weve seen from similar practice?

uh uh, baaad real bad.

willy soon found the data and Lord M outed them.

John Richardson said:

Rae, that sounds highly dubious to me.

It's more about money power and control.

Stealing our money and Power and Control over our lives.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rae Billett on June 2, 2011 at 5:33pm

So, Dear Mr. Rudd did commit us to pay fines under the Kyoto Protocol. BUT he did not say so before ratifying this bloody agreement.

Geoff you said: David Bradbury rang in and denied what Barry --- had spoken about. Hopefully there will be more if any of the others stand up and speak.

It seems David Bradbury was doing some back tracking about what he actually said. I don't believe him I do believe he made the statement that there would be 2billion in fines. Scare Tactic or truth?

How kind of the Labor Party to do this to the people of this country. What did Rudd think he was doing? Did he think that our economy could withstand the set backs this protocol would place on the people. Or did he just think about his image and getting there on the world stage which was what he always wanted. People should not forget his background and history in the Queensland government.

Now Gillard has to go along with all of this. She hasn't got a clue about economics.

BUT not if they don't sign Kyoto again in 2012 one would imagine?

However they probably will if they are still in power........ I AM FURIOUS.

We, the people of this country, are never told these things, never told the truth of the really important agreements we are being tied into by bloody power hungry politicians who think or seem to think they will go down in history as saving the world.. They won't.

Hopefully they won't survive to the next election.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Thompson on June 2, 2011 at 6:11pm

I agree John. Greg Hunt's position is now, and has always been unteneable. This is what I have been trying to tell my friends in the Liberal party for some time. Dennis Jensen should be shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change.

The current position makes no logical sense. "Yes we are destroying the planet but we need to keep doing it so that we can die happy", seems to me to be the extent of it. If they truly believed that Carbon Dioxide emmisions were destroying the planet, then of course Labor's policy would be better than the Liberals. If they don't believe it, then they mustn't shy away from telling the truth.

The fact is Carbon Dioxide is not destroying the planet and this is yet another attack on low and middle class people by elitists.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rae Billett on June 3, 2011 at 8:38am

But not to pensioners Bev,

Ross Garnant says pensioners won't get an increase because.....well they just had one! When was that? I imagine pensioners feel really comforted by this statement.

It really just shows how much out of touch this man is with everyday people. I wonder if he knows how much pensioners, married as a couple and sinlges get a fortnight and try to live on weekly? I would bet he would not be able to answer if that question was put to him nor would be able to say when the last increase was either.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rae Billett on June 8, 2011 at 2:14pm

Bev, that is the report I was referring to, thanks....If the Gaunaut model represents 'wealth distribution' to those on lower incomes why this? He seems to have the idea pensioners and the like have already been compensated!

Gaunaut rationale:

The Australian Council of Social Service also raised concerns about the rationale behind Professor Garnaut's proposed tax reforms, in particular his call to provide $1.5 billion a year less in compensation to pensioners and other welfare recipients than envisaged by the Rudd government's carbon pollution reduction scheme.

He argues that there have been "substantial increases" in benefit payments since the CPRS was proposed, meaning compensation levels could be cut, but ACOSS disagrees.

"He proposes household assistance for those on the lowest incomes be reduced to pay for unrelated tax reforms," ACOSS chief executive Cassandra Goldie said.

"It is vital that social security recipients are assured the average impact of a carbon price on their living costs is more than compensated by increases in payments."

As I said Ross Gaunaut would not have a clue about the way pensioners and people on low incomes live, not a clue. He is not one of the lower class, is he? At least ACOSS objected.