Australia Rejects Climate Cap-and-Trade Bill — Senators voted 42 to 30 against it: “It is a dog of a plan”
Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) — Australia’s Senate rejected the government’s climate-change legislation, forcing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to amend the bill or call an early election.
Senators voted 42 to 30 against the law, which included plans for a carbon trading system similar to one used in Europe. Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter, was proposing to reduce greenhouse gases by between 5 percent and 15 percent of 2000 levels in the next decade.
Rudd, who needs support from seven senators outside the government to pass laws through the upper house, can resubmit the bill after making amendments. A second rejection after a three-month span would give him a trigger to call an election.
…
“We may lose this fight, but this issue will not go away,” Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the Senate in Canberra. “Australia cannot afford for climate change to be unfinished business.”
Five members from the Australian Greens party sought bigger cuts to emissions while the opposition coalition and independent Senator Nick Xenophon wanted to wait for further studies on the plan’s impact on the economy.
…
“Australia going it alone before Copenhagen will not make a jot of difference,” Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said. “It is a dog of a plan and we will not support it in its current form.”
Read the complete article at Bloomberg
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Ian Middleton, don’t think we were introduced but I was among the Sceptics protesters. I thought it went pretty well. To all Aussies here I would like to see more of us at these protests if it’s at all possible for you to come.
Ahh Matt Bennett, quote “doesn’t even understand the scientific method and this allows him to be led around in ignorance” & “doesn’t have a shred of credibility left and that’s without touching on the fact that he is one of those all too common political leaders who talks to the sky…..” unquote
How nice of you to describe the likes of Rudd and Co. and half the Opposition so aptly. At least Senator Fielding can think for himself. As to the children, teach them critical thinking not politically correct dogma and seudo religious prattle that some how passes for science.
“Scepticism is the highest of duties, and blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
So wrote Thomas Huxley, one of the great minds of the scientific age.
And yes I borrowed that from Leon Ashby.
The truth will not be denied.
I call the ETS legislation the “longest suicide note in history”. It was good of the Senate to reject it.
Good for the Australians. I like to see a smug government get a surprise; more often the better. But here is the problem.
This issue is never, never going away, and the reason is what some people on this thread will never admit. Some of the science of this issue is settled–CO2 is an IR-absorbing/-radiating gas as are a couple of other gases associated with industry and our modern lifestyle. That much of this argument shouldn’t even be debated. We can even calculate, quite accurately, what is the direct effect of thse gases.
There are several levels in this entire debate, each one being more murky and complex than the one before it:
1) The direct effect of greenhouse gases related to modern economies and industry.
2) Feeback effects of 1).
3) The over-all result of 1) and 2) on the climate system and its effect regionally in particular.
4) The impact of 3) on various natural earth systems that we depend upon for support services.
5) Schemes by which we can mitigate the problem of releasing the naughty gases in the first place.
6) The ultimate impact of these schemes on the direct problem.
7) The cost of these various schemes to the economy, jobs, etc…
8) A decision to perform any one of many different schemes or do nothing at all.
I claim the science of step 1) in this long chain is settled, but each successive level is more complex and more difficult to comprehend. Probably the issues at step 2) aren’t fully comprehended. Unfortunately global warmists have step 1) as a settled issue and that is a nice trump card to be carrying when no one else is certain what the rest of the deck contains. Opportunists (politicians and certain businessmen) jump now to step 5) ; and the media and demagogues jump all the way to step 8) as though everything else in between is clear and settled. We need to hammer away, very clearly, about things we know for certain in steps 6) and 7); and emphasize in some way the void in knowledge in other steps as well.
For example, we know these schemes do almost nothing to alleviate the direct problem. 0.02C is laughable as salvation from a “dire crisis”, but the general public are so innumerate that they can’t see it. Journalists have trouble just calculating percentages for pete’s sake. Many people who do understand this have other agendas in mind, and so don’t care.
Someone else, earlier in this thread talked about a “carbon services bubble” developing over carbon emissions legislation. This is in step 7) and we have a little taste of what can occur here. Go read a report of the carbon services/green economy bubble that developed in Spain, which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. It is sobering to say the least. I worry the damage we might do to ourselves is incalculable.
Meanwhile, it’ll be fun to go read the Wall Street Journal on-line and see what folks like Barrie Harrop have to say today!
Trevor (02:14:09) said:
“The situation in Aus would be if Obama was able to call fresh elections to have a “new term”. Obama would still romp it in if that was the case.”
As a US citizen I closely follow US politics and it is not at all clear that Obama would be reelected. It can be argued that Obama’s is a man of destiny who arrived on the scene during a national crisis popularly blamed on the Republican party. Although Obama’s personal popularity is still over 50% he is rapidly losing personal support and his policies poll at less than 50% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/). More importantly he cannot accomplish anything without the votes of a Democratic house and particularly senate. Both state and national polling show his party losing generic polls. It remains to be seen if he can get Cap and Trade legislation passed even with his popularity and significant majorities in the House and Senate. I would be pleased to be educated on how this compares to “Aus” politics.
Kudos to the Aussies!! At least their senators listen to the people. Maybe I should move there.
Mondo:
Independent senator Steve Fielding should have been mentioned in the main article. He has been the most sane in this debate, asking questions of Penny Wong like we might ask on this blog….no one else has been so forthright.
UK Sceptic:-)
Glad to hear that there is some sanity left in that North-Western Province called the United Kingdom in the Peoples Democratic Republic of the European Union!
Britannic no-see-um:-)
Australia is very tempting, but then again anywhere is at the moment!
Looks like global warming has started again, the sun is out!
Fantatastic!
Well done you lads down under. You are all an inspiration to the rest of the civilised world.
Yes we can. We can repel this nonsense they are trying to ram down our throats.
Climate Heretic (06:26:31) :
DENIER POWER!
( I think it is time to embrace the denier label
That is a good idea and, at the same time, to establish some “force ideas” like:
-CO2 is transparent (many believe it is black)
– CO2 is the gas we all exhale and plants and trees breath
– CO2 it is an enviroinmental friendly gas, it promotes life on the earth.
Make all your suggestions to build the deniers’ decalog!
BTW
Have a look at this – I’ve also posted the link on the tropical storm post made earlier! Guess who is doing it again – & again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8197191.stm
It’s really funny in many ways as especially thay have the right Mann for the job. It’s incnclusive in my mind, with crass statements like “it’s the worst in 1,000 years” followed by “or perhaps not”! Monty Python eat your heart out, you’re no patch on these guys for lunacy!
“E.M.Smith (03:52:45) :
After a couple of added gems indicating a complete lack of understanding of anything at all related to physics, chemistry, engineering, or any other technical field; I found a reason to be somewhere that did not involve being in earshot of the guy…”
Get this man a VB!
VICTORY!
“Alan the Brit (07:18:23) :
UK Sceptic:-)
Glad to hear that there is some sanity left in that North-Western Province called the United Kingdom in the Peoples Democratic Republic of the European Union!
Britannic no-see-um:-)
Australia is very tempting, but then again anywhere is at the moment!
Looks like global warming has started again, the sun is out!”
No, please, we don’t need no more of them there POMEs, ok?
Kevin,
I have had a quick look at the Spanish study you linked. Their findings come as no surprise really. Take the nonsense oft spoken by Obama about the millions of “green jobs” that will be created. The report referred to Bastiat, the French economist who famously produced the fallacy of the Broken Window.
Bastiat asked the reader to imagine a shoemakers shop where a child had broken the window. Onlookers gather around and notice that the shoemaker enlists the services of the glazier. The glazier has repaired the window, and with the money received made purchases of his own. The onlookers conclude that the child has benefited the economy by creating jobs and wealth. Bastiat showed that the fallacy arose because the onlookers based their conclusions only on what they can see with their eyes, not with what is unseen. What remains unseen, is that the money spent by the shoe maker on repairing the window would have been used for something else. Maybe he would have purchased a new coat. That purchase is lost forever.
The point of the Spanish study is that policy makers are thinking as the crowd of onlookers. They forget that these green jobs can only occur by taking jobs from somewhere else. The study goes further and shows that it’s far worse than one job lost for job created. They found actually 2.2 jobs lost for each green job created. How could this be?
The reason is due to efficiency loss. Green energy is less efficient and costs more to produce. This means the economy is able to produce less goods for the same cost of purchased inputs. The end result is economic contraction.
Alan the Brit (07:18:23) :
The Peoples Democratic Republic of the European Union
That invention seems to be near its end, if we take into account the last election for the TPDREU parliament.
Now, for example, France has a by far a better economic position being energy independent, if France would turn back into the Franc currency it would have a greater value than the TPDREU “euro”.
Energy is the key political element of the future. If you choose Windmills you are a sure candidate for dependency.
Good going Australia. Now start working the people to wake up to the hoax. The media will only come around kicking and screaming. They will hate to admit they were in the wrong bed.
collapsing wave (02:33:45) :
“You still have your fingers in your ears going la la la but the earth is warming and millions will die…”
It’s good to see another rational AGW proponent joining in the discussion…
Here’s a You Tube video of Aussie Professor Bob Carter lecturing on AGW. I’m sure many on WUWT have seen it before but I hadn’t – it’s from 2007. Maybe, once collapsing wave has finished watching the teletubbies he might want to watch this for his continuing education?…
VICTORY?
A win. We are still a long way from VICTORY.
Can’t have too good news.
Even if it’s killed because the Greens say its not intrusive enough, it’s still killed.
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/australia-australia-australia-no-agw-pooftas/
As one who had is back covered in a bar fight by an Aussie friend- ‘eres to ya’
Mates: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INdjRCNcZj0
Vincent (07:38:09) :
Many people have got the statistic of 2.2 jobs destroyed per “green job” created, I suppose by reading various summaries of this report; but one of the little discussed aspects of the Spanish effort is that the government has sold what are effectively 25 year bonds carrying a guaranteed yield of 17%, when market interest rates aren’t one-third of that. Who will pay this? Why the average Spaniard of course. So, there are many, many insults that the Spanish economy will suffer for a very long because of this. The report is really well worth reading fully.
Aussie Aussie Aussie oy oy oy!!!
Seems like you’ve got a couple too many stars on the flag there mate.
Oh well, we believe you did the right thing; time to turf those weenies out, and get back to basics.
REPLY: What makes you think I have the wrong Australian flag?
Here are my two references:
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~rasigsau/australian_flag.htm
http://www.australianflag.org.au/
I fail to see where I have made any error in choosing the correct flag in the photo above
– Anthony
“”” Kevin Kilty (06:44:10) :
Good for the Australians. I like to see a smug government get a surprise; more often the better. But here is the problem.
This issue is never, never going away, and the reason is what some people on this thread will never admit. Some of the science of this issue is settled–CO2 is an IR-absorbing/-radiating gas as are a couple of other gases associated with industry and our modern lifestyle. That much of this argument shouldn’t even be debated. We can even calculate, quite accurately, what is the direct effect of thse gases. “””
We can ? so how come we keep on getting the wrong answers. The CO2 keeps on going up, but the temperature doesn’t seem to tfollow it, but now insists on going the other way.
And by the way; in the part of the atmosphere where CO2 does any significant amount of absorbing (yes it does) it does virtually zero radiation.
The excitation energy absorbed out of the long wave surface IR is dissipated as “heat” in collisions with N2 and O2 molecules, or an occasional Ar atom. Remember it’s in transit so it must be “heat”, right ?
The thermal radiation from the atmosphere is a product of the ordinary atmospheric gases, it does not come from the CO2, and the energy to heat that atmosphere more than likely comes from water vapor rather than CO2 or any other trace gas. At higher altitudes some of it comes from ozone absorbing in the 9-10 micron band; but that ozone is also absorbing some in coming solar energy as well so it also contributes to cooling of the surface. It is only at very high altitudes where the mean free path is long and the mean time between collisions is less than the lifetime of the excited CO2 state, that the CO2 itslef becomes a radiator, and then it is so rare, that the amount of energy being radiated is negligible.