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
collapsing wave (02:33:45):
What ‘collapsing wave’ sees in the mirror: click
Fill this form out, and you’ll feel much better.
And for our friends in Oz: click. You made us smile today!
Kevin Kilty (06:44:10) :
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.
I’ll bite.
CO2 is 380+ppm of the atsmosphere. Water has 4 times the effect. Disregarding the wavelength saturation, what is the direct effect of CO2 calculated from empirical data?
Collapsing Wave-millions may die but from the coming cold.Warm is good cold is bad-very bad..
Collapsing Wave – I’ve got news for you. In little more than 100 years, EVERYONE alive today will be dead. That’s 7bn people. Do you think you can fix that with a tax rise?
collapsing wave (02:33:45) :
The sun is in a “collapsing wave” you’ll feel it soon and it doesn’t matter how much CO2 you exhale it won’t heat up. Your mother land will prefer being covered with ice than being subjected to your prophet’s designs.
All I can say is, it is far more important that cap-and-trade dies than healthcare reform. At least with healthcare reform, we’ll be getting something to benefit Americans (even though it’ll probably be rationed and of lesser quality) vs passing cap-and-trade which is going to result in wealth, technology, and technological know-how being transfered to foreign countries.
“”” George E. Smith (10:12:02) :
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
Not to worry Anthony; just a littel regional elbowing. We Kiwis only have four of the Southern Cross Statrs on our flag; I think ours are red too instead of white. NZ is also giving the bum’s rush to the cap and trade crowd. Their intesive tree farming makes NZ a net carbon sink just like the USA.
Anyway I’m a Yank now; so I don’t look at other flags that much any more.
So no foul; green flag; sail on !
George
Collapsing wave is obviously either a parody or a 12 year old, take your pick!
Mr Green Genes (11:29:45) :
“Collapsing Wave – I’ve got news for you. In little more than 100 years, EVERYONE alive today will be dead. That’s 7bn people. Do you think you can fix that with a tax rise?”
A little older, but data is still current:
[url]http://www.theonion.com/content/news/world_death_rate_holding_steady_at[/url]
Anthony ,your Aussie flag is perfectly OK. Those of you who saw the protest at Parliament House it was organised by The Climate Sceptics Party of Australia ( http://www.climatesceptics.com.au ). Those Australians who read this and have not joined TCS please consider doing so. We are very close to being registered as a political party only needing a few people to make that a reality.
For those of you from outside of Australia, take heart at the results we are starting to see from our actions and coordination with other politicians who are sceptical of the AGW Hypothesis. You will be able to watch and learn from us and maybe consider setting up the same party in your countries.
Keep up the fight for calm, rational and informed debate.
Hopefully our politicians will follow the West Island’s lead!
That Spanish study reminds me that there’s only ever one thing more depressing than a climate scientist pretending he knows how the climate works, and that is an economist who pretends he knows how economies work. When have either set of loons ever been right about anything? They both distort history to fit their ideologies and then makes predictions based on overly-simplified models which are always, repeat always wrong. At least though some progress is being made in climate science – largely by skeptics it would seem. Economists though are a lost cause – stimulus doesn’t go far enough, it goes too far, government not doing enough, it’s doing too much. For that reason alone i’d expect that Spanish report to be 100% wrong and that there’ll be green jobs aplenty. Tthen they’ll say it’s more inefficient because green tech uses too many workers.
Congratulations OZ! Always liked your independent spirit. Be ready for the follow on by keeping an eye on science confirming the disconnect between AGW CO2 and temps. As that more clear the purpose in “capping CO2” becomes ever more barmy.
Congratulations oz we hope we will follow the trend across the ditch.
Good on yer mates! Intelligence and common sense prevails over sheer suicidal idiocy.
Cap and Trade would commit millions of dollars to fight a problem that doesn’t exist, by means unscientific, to an extent that the even the fabricated science says is woefully inadequate and crosses the borders of the ridiculous in one giant leap.
Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of listening to a Greens party lady on radio saying how important it was for “us” to “fight” global warming and how we (New Zealand) must do our bit no matter that China and India were spewing out many times the CO2 that we would ever hope to produce.
The reason? We were the highest per capita producers of GHG’s, thanks to our cattle and sheep flatulence (and hers possibly?). She said of course India and China SHOULD produce more CO2 and they were “allowed” because they had more people. The total numbers didnt matter to her – per capita was what she was most concerned about.
This is a big win for democracy and the rights of the citizens of Australia. However, this is only the first major salvo launched and more needs to be done to keep intelligent debate going to help the majority understand the issues involved.
Matt Bennett (01:09:17) :…..
You attack Steve Fielding personally without addressing his questions…. All Mr Fielding did was ask Penny Wong, the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water, three simple questions which She and the AGW pro active scientists are unable to answer…. Just as you do.
————————————————————
[The questions Fielding put to Minister Wong were as follows:
Question 1:
Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
Question 2:
Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history (Fig. 2a, 2b)?
If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
Question 3:
Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?
If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making? ]
———————————————————-
For this you call him stupid and uneducated….. No sir. The fault lies with you.
There is still a long way to go here in Oz. As a country we account for only 1% of global GHG’s and nearly half of that comes from agriculture including livestock. The majority of the population have been deluded by the new federal government to believe that the ETS will actually reverse climate change locally and set an example that the rest of the world (including the main GHG emitters) will follow. So although this looks like a first round victory for common sense the majority of Australians still very much believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. This is evidenced in the opinion poles that have Kevin Rudd > 60% approval rating. The Labor party’s belief in AGW is such that it would probably take icebergs to flow into Sydney Harbour before they questioned it, and even if they did their course of action would be to invite TV and media stars and sporting personalities to form a new high powered intellectual committee for some high powered brain storming.
I think NASA should be investigating the new and rapid growth of deep space – between the ears of this planets human inhabitants.
The battle is a very, very long way from being won in Australia. I am wondering if a suggestion of an emissions trading scheme for oxygen would be a help. It would mean starting the work all over again and might show up the mistakes which have been made with carbon trading. 🙂
E.M.Smith (03:52:45) :
Alan the Brit (02:17:56) : As I suspected, it is only in the UK the politicians are a bunch of self-agrandising, conceited, duplicitous, venal, mendacious, scientifically ignorant bone idle born out of wedlock half-wits with a smile on both faces, (have I missed something out?) who can’t be bothered to think things through properly!
Nope. That is an accurate description of our lot in the U.S.A. too…
Though I think you left out vain, condescending, deceitful, and power hungry… Oh, and too lazy to actually read the laws they pass.
Duly noted:-)
As I suspected, it is only in the UK the politicians are a bunch of self-agrandising, conceited, duplicitous, venal, mendacious, vain, condescending, deceitful, power hungry, too lazy to actually read the laws they pass, scientifically ignorant bone idle, born out of wedlock half-wits with a smile on both faces, who can’t be bothered to think things through properly! Oooh that felt good second time around. Surely they cannot possess any other noble attributes?
We have the same over here too then. It’s like the tax threshold for the low paid, & the taxing of polder cars, they voted for it, then 12 months later realised what they had done & couldn’t reverse it, making a few million poor worse off, at the same time baying for blood but not their own! Do you have a Party Whip in the States, one who makes all party members tow the line? That’s party politics for you.
Re: PMH (06:45:16)
“As a US citizen I closely follow US politics and it is not at all clear that Obama would be reelected..”
I wouldn’t want to divert this thread too much by discussing politics of US vs Aus system. Suffice to say, I fully understand that Obama is basically in for 4 years and so my analogy was a “what if”. In the Australian political system, Federal (National) elections are every three years. The Lower House of Parliament (House of Representatives) is the House that Governs the country. The political party that gets the majority in the Lower House is the Governing party. Currently the Labor party has the majority and the labor leader of the lower house is Kevin Rudd (Krudd). He is the Prime Minister. Labor is politically Left to Middle. The current minority party in the Lower House is the Opposition. (Made up of two parties in a coalition, Liberals Middle to right and the Nationals – Further right who generally represent rural voters and farmers etc.) John Howard, our previous PM was the leader of the Liberal Party, he was a great mate of Bush (the younger).
The lower house runs the show. Any policies they make have to be “rubber stamped” or reviewed by the Upper house or senate in which currently the Labor party does not have a majority. If the senate rejects the same Lower house legislation twice within 3 months the PM can call an early election and dissolve both houses of parliament. In other words all seats are “up for grabs”.
Because Krudd if still popular he may do this although I think this may be unlikely now.
I heard on the radio today Rudd stating categorically, that he was elected to serve for 3 years and that is his intention. He seemed very adamant about not calling an early election. I think he fears calling an election over an ETS as the trigger issue as this will allow a lot of debate on this single issue. I expect that Rudd may wait until late 2010, have the normal election, probably get in. It means he will may have to wait an extra year to get his ETS across the line but he will avoid the election being on a single issue.
On a side issue, today as I was travelling, the ETS is big discussion. One radio station in 30 minutes did a “straw poll” on whether people are against or for the ETS. The result was amazing, 40 callers against the ETS, 2 for the ETS.
I was unaware that Obama is losing popularity so rapidly. Does that mean you’ll elect Palin in 2012? 🙂
@ur momisugly Collapsing Wave – According to John Holdren , Obamas Science Czar, that is a good thing. In fact it’s not nearly enough. He wants the population to be around 2 billion. Such a sweet heart isn’t he?
Vincent,
Bastiat’s “negative railway” is another good example of his thinking. When railroads were being built through France, the residents of one town called for a gap to be made in the railroad there, arguing that it would create employment for porters, taxis, hotels, shops, etc, as travellers disembarked at one rail terminus and made their way to the other one. Bastiat seized on this, and called for a railway that consisted entirely of gaps – a “negative railway”.
The logic of Green “job creation” schemes is the same. It leads back to the Stone Age. Which is, of course, exactly what they want.
I sure hope we can one day clean up our education system so that the nonsense and half-truths espoused by such pseudo-intellects can be discerned by most for what it is.
I sure hope that doesn’t sound like what I think that sounds like.
evanmjones (09:26:35) :
See this and please don’t faint:
http://cms01.unesco.org/en/esd/themes/environment/