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
I have always like the Aussies. I knew their good-natured common sense would prevail. Now, throw another AGW alarmist on the barbie! And open another can of that delicious CO2-fuming Fosters!!!
(This is meant to be humor. The writer does not advocate actual barbequeing of the wizards who have drunk the AGW Kool-Aid. The writer does, however, advocate the consumption of CO2-fuming bevvies, even if there are..uh..eventual collateral CH4 emissions.)
Ozzie, ozzie, ozzie! Oy, oy, oy!!!!!!
Trevor (03:29:26)
Thanks for the education: it helps understand what is realy happening.
US politics is very dynamic and the US electorate have a very short memory: Typically more interested in “what have you done for me lately” than “what did you do for me last year”. As for 2012 I’m putting 50% on Obama, 50% on Palin, and 50% on someone whose name we don’t even know. Congressional elections next year should sharpen this bet.
As for the topic of this thread: as of Friday July 14, the betting ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah3CTKEw4HQco ) is that the senate will take up energy legislation this year but not cap-and-trade.
There’s a new threat to Australia now, according to Landline (I think that’s the name, not sure TBH) program on TV this morning and that’s the water footprint. Yes people it’s true, Australia is sufferening from global drying. Our water footprint will be highlighted soon by “green” groups….unlike air, water is already taxed here.
See this and please don’t faint:
*klunk*
PM’s man hits out at climate sceptics
The Prime Minister’s top science adviser, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, (early childhood health and development expert), has drawn a comparison between climate change sceptics and those in the 1980s who disputed that Aids was caused by the HIV virus. (Why not flat earthers? just go the whole hog!)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10590938
So far as I could see there was only one scientific paper against AIDS being caused by a virus. Nothing like the opposition today against the AGW hypothesis, whose science has been clouded by lies, manipulation and concealment.
This is another case of a person in another discipline, to be admired for his work in his discipline, pontificating about AGW.
StevenY (11:32:01) :
I have always like the Aussies. I knew their good-natured common sense would prevail. Now, throw another AGW alarmist on the barbie! And open another can of that delicious CO2-fuming Fosters!!!
We like you back, however we don’t really drink Fosters Lager. Fosters is export only really with a couple of bars on Oxford street is Sydney selling it on tap.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Excerpts From: Global Warming, a Mass Mania
“Global Warming is the mania of our times. While there is good scientific evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing from the burning of fossil fuels, and that carbon dioxide does indeed absorb infa-red heat radiation of certain frequencies, it is purely speculation that this will cause a climate catastrophe.”
“The ongoing political waffle over setting targets for differing percentages of emission reductions at various points decades in the future is about as useful as debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
“Unfortunately, the academics, activists, politicians and bureaucrats leading the push for carbon dioxide taxation and use of renewable energy are non-producers who are woefully ignorant of both the economic reality of productive activity and the practical limits of technology. They are techno-economic-illiterates with a cargo cult understanding of production. Their prescriptions amount to a ritualistic belief that admitting sin (GW) and making an appropriate sacrifice (carbon dioxide taxes) will in some undefined (magical) way bring forth all the right changes, discoveries and implementations that are needed to effect a bright new world of clean endlessly renewable energy with minimal inconvenience to anyone.”
The full article – well worth a read: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/08/walter-starck
Tim Clark (10:55:59) :
“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?
MODTRAN shows the direct effect of doubling CO2 from 375 to 750 ppm, in a dry atmosphere, with surface temperature of 294K and standard atmosphere lapse rate, to be 3.8 W/m^2. It is really not a large effect, but it does increase the power absorbed on the surface. There isn’t any doubt about this. MODTRAN operates on measured spectra of CO2 from 6 to 1000 micrometers wavelength, and it has been used by the Navy and Air Force, and lots of other folks for a long time–plenty well validated in technical systems.
Now the next step in the chain is the effect of the additional 3.8 W/m^2 on water vapor, and this is where things begin to become very complicated.
George E. Smith (10:26:27) :
“”” 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.
Yes, but the temperature is not going down because the behavior of CO2 is somehow different–it involves more complicated issues. My point is that
we would help our argument if we could get away from simplistic statements like “CO2 doesn’t warm the Earth.”
Erratum: A couple of posts back I said that MODTRAN calculates from 6 to 1000 micrometers, and in fact it goes from 6 to 100 micrometers.
Crickey! Look at this for media and political spin…
Most of the 1400 people represent most Australians?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/voters-back-labor-on-emissions-scheme-20090816-emdh.html
Interesting opinion piece..
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/why-garrett-cant-sock-it-to-em-20090816-em99.html
The nonsense grows and grows…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/life-support-system-pushed-to-the-limit-20090817-enc3.html
Patrick Davis (00:00:23) :
It’s how academics get grants these days: by studying nature and blaming it on man. Now that it’s ‘climate change’ anything goes. I still call it global warming because that’s what it’s all about: that’s what started this whole fiasco off.
Ah well. It’s the last Ashes test match this week at the Oval. Maybe global warming will make the ball swing and favour England and we’ll win the Ashes back? I can see the headlines: “Global Warming Wins The Ashes for England”.
Unfortunately, the probability is that the headline will be: “Global Warming Helps Aussies Retain The Ashes”.
“Patrick Davis (00:00:23) :
It’s how academics get grants these days: by studying nature and blaming it on man. Now that it’s ‘climate change’ anything goes. I still call it global warming because that’s what it’s all about: that’s what started this whole fiasco off.
Ah well. It’s the last Ashes test match this week at the Oval. Maybe global warming will make the ball swing and favour England and we’ll win the Ashes back? I can see the headlines: “Global Warming Wins The Ashes for England”.
Unfortunately, the probability is that the headline will be: “Global Warming Helps Aussies Retain The Ashes”.”
That’s if they can keep the seaguls off the pitch and stop them from flying off with one of the bails.
Good on the Aussies!
Oz is the only country in the world I’ve ever been where the taxi drivers assault you with extremist liberal, eco-crusader points of view. That alone is worth the trip! (Unless an American contributor can tell me this is the same in e.g. San Francisco ? 🙂
Thx for a great blog – just don’t move the centre (sic) of gravity too far toward the factual until my novel’s published – my AGW-believing baddie is a key protagonist ! ..
More scaremogering, this time from the food council…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/food-prices-will-rise-5-per-cent-council-warns-20090817-enon.html
Sounds more like robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I find it hilarious when American try to miss quote situations they don’t seem to want to understand, this story is rubbish. A closer look at the facts would reveal that of the 30-42 vote, 5 votes are from the greens, they voted against it because they want high (not lower) targets, when push comes to shove and the second vote comes on this issue they will vote for it rather than see it fail. So all the denier back slapping above is pretty pointless.
In all honesty the opposition here is in such a mess they can’t afford to go to an election over this issue (and they know it) plus they on the verge of another leadership change and Senator Nick Xenophon already has a history of using such locked votes to get things for his own electorate as he did with the water bill to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I also notice that Mr Watts fails to mention that the opposition here “the Liberals” lead by Malcolm Turnbull actually support the theory of AGW so what ever Mr Watts thinks he sees in this vote simply isn’t there.