The end is near down under! Australia dissolves their Climate Change Ministry

From Reuters Point Carbon:

Australia axes ministerial role for climate change

The new Australian Cabinet will be the first in six years to not have a ministerial role for climate change issues, merging instead global warming with the wider environment portfolio.

Announcing his Cabinet on Monday, incoming Prime Minister Tony Abbott appointed Greg Hunt, the Liberal-National Coalition’s spokesman on climate change issues since 2009, as the new Minister for the Environment.

“(Hunt) will have responsibility for the abolition of the carbon tax, implementation of the Coalition’s Direct Action plan, the establishment of the Green Army and the creation of a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals,” Abbott said in a statement.

Hunt, 47 and a member of parliament since 2001, has had the main responsibility of developing and promoting the Direct Action Plan, the Coalition policy to reach the national target of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.

Under the plan, the new government will set up a fund to buy emission cuts from those companies that pledge to achieve them at the lowest cost.

“The change signals that as expected, the Abbott government will not give climate change the same weight as the previous government,” said Frank Jotzo, deputy director of Australia National University’s Climate Change Institute.

“The environment ministry traditionally holds less sway in cabinet than many others, and the integration of the climate policy bureaucracy into the Environment department will also tend to diminish its role,” he said by email.


Read the full story here

In related news, I expect the laughable Tim Flannery will be out of a job, but I also expect he’ll land at some NGO like Greenpeace or WWF, since these organizations have money to burn and embrace high paid fools that have failed elsewhere.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 17, 2013 10:01 am

Hey, they’re gonna need that Minister if it cools like I expect.

Steve C
September 17, 2013 10:05 am

Well, it sounds generally promising, but I do think that “the establishment of the Green Army” has a rather ominous ring to it …

September 17, 2013 10:08 am

I can imagine the screaming if that happened in Canada. Oh, that’s right. We don’t have a Climate Change Ministry. A Canadian posted the other night that Canada was becoming semi tropical. She thinks that is scary? If only it was true, I would not have to shuttle between two houses.

Frank K.
September 17, 2013 10:09 am

This begs the question – what government in their right mind would have a **Climate Change Ministry** in the first place?? Aren’t there more important problems like jobs and the economy?
Good for Australia!

Mike Bromley the Kurd
September 17, 2013 10:14 am

Sounds suspiciously like some backtracking going on.

François GM
September 17, 2013 10:19 am

I think this is greatly significant. Politicians love to wrap themselves in everything Green. Something having to do with moral superiority, opportunism and taxes. But above all, politicians want to be elected. So … here’s a lesson for all you politicians out there: NO GREEN TAX or THE AXE.

September 17, 2013 10:19 am

The “Direct Action” plan is pretty misguided itself, but at least it will waste much less money in pursuit of a pointless cause than the last government did. But there is some hope that while this government will be successful in getting rid of the Carbon Tax, the opposition will be against anything they propose, and will help to kill “Direct Action”. So, Australia, thanks to the backbiting of party politics, may end up doing nothing at all for “climate change” from now on – which is probably the Best of All Possible Outcomes down there!

September 17, 2013 10:20 am

Since I live in Canada, and see no signs of the climate becoming semi-tropical, I wonder what that Canadian lady was smoking? There is one spot in southern Ontario, south of Windsor that has a subtropcial humid climate, but it has always been so and it is a very small area and it is also known as Canada’s tornado ally. There is also the west coast of Canada which has a Mediterranean climate, but this too, has always been so. The rest of Canada is pretty darn cold during our winters, and this coming winter is projected as being very, very cold with lotsa snow. Maybe this Canadian lady is confused, retired and living in Florida?

September 17, 2013 10:25 am

The intellectual wind is from a new direction. It is freshening. And it carries the unmistakable scent of healthy, reasonable and normal skepticism.
Now, assuming the intellectual wind travels via the 5th and 6th estates (MSM & blogosphere respectively)

Pamela Gray
September 17, 2013 10:25 am

Well…I would say that a coyote in sheep’s clothing is better than a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but I wouldn’t say that climate warming related government taxing and intrusion is dead. It’s just in a smaller canine with smaller teeth. But a canine nonetheless. And sorry if I have insulted man’s best friend.

September 17, 2013 10:28 am

Sanity returns to Oz.

September 17, 2013 10:43 am

Let us hope that Direct Action involves a lot of inaction.
There was some punditry discussing the state of the Aussie Senate (the electoral rules of which look quite curious) which at present is polluted with Greens. It’s been posited that the current Senate could block repeal of the carbon tax until July; the next crop of Senators – in which the voters mostly purged the Greens in favor of a gaggle of minor-party candidates – will certainly vote its repeal, but they may also block implementation of ‘Direct Action’.
So we’ll see where Abbott’s heart really is on this issue.
I’d guess he could go to the current Senate with the carbon-tax repeal and sell them ‘Direct Action’ as the half-a-loaf on the basis that if they turn it down come next July the Greens and the crypto-green urban Labor contingent are likely to get nothing at all, or he can slow-walk it, wait until July and get the carbon-tax repeal and a little hand-wringing for show about how ‘Direct Action’ died in the Senate…

Theo Goodwin
September 17, 2013 10:46 am

“In related news, I expect the laughable Tim Flannery will be out of a job, but I also expect he’ll land at some NGO like Greenpeace or WWF, since these organizations have money to burn and embrace high paid fools that have failed elsewhere.”
In my humble opinion, Flannery’s heart is with Greenpeace and Greenpeace’s heart is with Flannery. Both are modern hoodlums and they share the delusion that they are modern Robin Hoods, as they steal from the poor to give to the rich. Of course, Flannery won’t be able to do the “war on whalers” gig.

September 17, 2013 10:47 am

I write because I am genuinely curious concerning the importance of this change.
In the UK a Ministerial Department is scrutinised by Select Committees. So, if a Ministerial Department is established then appropriate Select Committees are established. But if a Ministerial Department is abolished or subsumed into another department then the appropriate Select Committees are abolished. And if a Ministerial Department is subsumed into another Department then scrutiny of its work becomes part of the appropriate Select Committees for the subsuming Department.
Can anyone from Oz please tell me if this is the same in their Parliament.

September 17, 2013 10:54 am

This all sounds good for a start but the character assassins of the Labor Party will gear up to bring back the climate change Talliban in due time.

Ken B
September 17, 2013 11:00 am

Of course where politics are concerned you always have to deal with elements in your own party that are green and zealous towards saving everything including the planet, and the bottom line is that the last mob ran up a huge line of debt to pay for their wasteful ways so you move carefully and purposefully to free up the system and get the economics right. Even this steady correction will alarm the wailing willies and those who benefitted from the waste – a snout held back from its trough has a powerful squeal!!

September 17, 2013 11:01 am

Pity the intellectuals of the climate-fossil fuel scare.
Now they are significantly more scared of public exposure and loss of income.
Fund sequestration is coming around to their backdoors . . . to their front doors is ridicule by the public.

Segue C
September 17, 2013 11:08 am

“Direct Action Plan, the Coalition policy to reach the national target of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.”
Sanity may be a relative thing…the above sounds like the lesser of two weevils.

September 17, 2013 11:12 am

Reblogged this on Mothers Against Wind Turbines and commented:
The Aussies have smartened up….when will we???

September 17, 2013 11:12 am

Some rays of light down under…. meanwhile, in the UK an angry MP has declared “the greatest threat to our planet’s existence” (I kid you not):

September 17, 2013 11:13 am

Perhaps the angry Labour MP imagines that CO2 will make the earth explode….

September 17, 2013 11:15 am

The green army… is that another name for a Barmy Army?

September 17, 2013 11:23 am

Steve C says:
September 17, 2013 at 10:05 am
Well, it sounds generally promising, but I do think that “the establishment of the Green Army” has a rather ominous ring to it …
Abbott has to sound “green” entirely for political perceptions. But there’s nothing ominous about it:
In summary:
“AN Abbott “Green Army” of 15,000 young Australians recruited to rejuvenate bushland and waterways would be deployed around the country under a Coalition government.
Young people aged 17 -24 would be paid up to $16.03 an hour for six months’ work and could use the experience towards certificate qualifications in land management and horticulture.”
In effect a “planting tree spree” to “absorb” more CO2 !!
Incidentally there was no Minister for Science announced. Abbott at this stage just doesn’t want to entirely “rock the climate boat”.

William Abbott
September 17, 2013 11:25 am

I googled “green army australia” It was established in 1996 as something like our old Civilian Conservation Corps. It is a work/jobs plan for youth.

September 17, 2013 11:31 am

“(Hunt) will have responsibility for the abolition of the carbon tax, implementation of the Coalition’s Direct Action plan, the establishment of the Green Army and the creation of a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals,” Abbott said in a statement.
Hunt, has had the main responsibility of developing and promoting the Direct Action Plan, the Coalition policy to reach the national target of reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions 5 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.
Under the plan, the new government will set up a fund to buy emission cuts from those companies that pledge to achieve them at the lowest cost.

So, more of the same then? While the carbon tax may be abolished, they will still have the Carbon Cap in place, with the emissions trading scheme, while at the same time having a “Green Army” similar to the Obama Brown-Shirt Army.
One wonders where the monies for this emission cutting fund will come from.
I’m not seeing anything to be positive about here.

William Astley
September 17, 2013 11:35 am

This is the being of the end for AGW and the climate change mania and green scam energy.
Reality wins over propaganda. The average voter’s primary concern is jobs/economy, taxes, and cost of energy. There is no AGW problem to solve as the planet resists rather than amplifies warming.
If there is no AGW problem to solve there is no possible reason to subsidize inefficient, job killing, green scams. The western countries have spent $2 trillion dollars on green scams that have made almost no difference in the CO2 emissions in the countries where the scams were installed and have resulted in almost no practical reduction in the rate of rise of CO2 emissions. Green scams require subsides as they do not make economic sense. The resultant of spending $2 trillion dollars on green scams is higher energy costs and a net loss in jobs.
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy (William: US) companies:)

September 17, 2013 12:01 pm

captainfish says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:31 am
So, more of the same then? While the carbon tax may be abolished, they will still have the Carbon Cap in place, with the emissions trading scheme, while at the same time having a “Green Army” similar to the Obama Brown-Shirt Army.
I’m not seeing anything to be positive about here.
Dear oh Dear – you really need to Google both aussie “Green army” and Obama’s Brown-shirts to see that one are “tree planters” and the other related to civilian security. I hope I’m wrong but brown-shirts sounds familiar to something that existed in the Rhineland during the 1930’s.
Your wrong the changes to be made in Abbott climate policy are significant and a definite step in the right direction. My view is that the climate issue will be slowly put on the back-burner in time.
[Should not the last be “You are wrong, the ..” Mod?]

September 17, 2013 12:23 pm

I have just discovered I am in fact an Australian citizen (I was born in Australia).
What does that mean?
Does that mean I could have voted Gillard out?

Reply to  Mike Haseler
September 17, 2013 12:37 pm

Haseler – Voting is mandatory in Australia, so that means you can be fined or jailed for not voting! 😉

September 17, 2013 12:36 pm

Biting irony that Reuters Point Carbon has to report on this deconstruction of the climatocrats’ kleptocracy down under…

Tim Clark
September 17, 2013 12:37 pm

The direct action plan is a carrot. It’s a 7 year itch of lip service.

September 17, 2013 12:56 pm

philjourdan says: “ Haseler – Voting is mandatory in Australia, so that means you can be fined or jailed for not voting!
I’ll just vote a lot of times next time to make up for all the years I haven’t been voting!

Reply to  Mike Haseler
September 17, 2013 1:18 pm

– that works in Chicago. 😉

September 17, 2013 1:07 pm

Unfortunately we didn’t get the chance to “vote Gillard out”. She was knifed by one of her colleagues, Kevin Rudd, as part of a pre-election coup designed to fool the voters that Labor could be trusted for a 3rd term. The coup succeeded, but the voters weren’t fooled; we voted Rudd out instead.

J Martin
September 17, 2013 1:17 pm

Haseler. You’ve just discovered where you were born ! How is that possible ?
Are you sure your surname isn’t Obama ?

September 17, 2013 1:27 pm

I raise a general question for people to ask:
– have the functions been shifted elsewhere?
– what authority is in the new location?
For example, the city of Victoria BC is eliminating a high paid Sustainabiity boss, but the mayor says the city is still committed to sustainability, and is renaming the Planning department to include the Sustainabiity concept. That might increase authority in practice, by more closely connecting sustainability lobbying to development.

September 17, 2013 2:00 pm

Exactly Keith. To me, this sounds like another bait and switch. We can tell that this gov’t believes in the mantra that CO2 is bad and thus needs to be mitigated. The only difference I am seeing is that the previous gov’t liked to have a CAP & TAX, while the new one only likes CAP.
FrankK: Would you mind sharing with us what the purpose of the new “Green Army” is? If it is to plant tree, then may I ask why?
And yeah, the term “brown shirt army” is rather pejorative, but the symbolism fits with the intent that Obama had\has for his “trained youth corps”. It’s more youth indoctrination and coercion.
The supposed conservative party turned out to be rather liberal, so you boot them out and replace them with a liberal labor party (read Socialist in USA)? And did I read that right that they’ve formed a unity gov’t with the Nationalist party? Is that not as ominous as it sounds to us here in USA? National-Socialist party ?

September 17, 2013 2:11 pm

The ABC whom were the AGW propaganda machine (along with the CSIRO) for the former government have an online survey running at the moment. The results show that the average Aussie is does not buy into the scam. Here are the results so far from approx. 5,400 voters:-
Dismissive – 49%, Alarmed – 23%, Concerned – 13%, Doubtful – 9%, Cautious – 5%, Disengaged – 1%.
So who are the deniers, them or us.

September 17, 2013 2:17 pm

Frank K. said:
September 17, 2013 at 10:09 am
This begs the question – what government in their right mind would have a **Climate Change Ministry** in the first place??
Well why not? England has its Ministry of Silly Walks…

September 17, 2013 2:20 pm

FrankK says:
September 17, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Your wrong the changes to be made in Abbott climate policy are significant and a definite step in the right direction. My view is that the climate issue will be slowly put on the back-burner in time.
[Should not the last be “You are wrong, the ..” Mod?]
Well-spotted Mod! Too early in the morning here (4.30am – I think) is my excuse.
Yes, “You’re wrong” it should be instead of “Your wrong”.
Is this a any greater “sin” than “Length of Day variation” instead of “diurnal time variation” or “length of a climate cycle” instead of ” duration of a climate cyclic”. I better cease here in case Willy comes in with all guns firing!! (LOL)
Cheers, one of the best sites on the internet.

September 17, 2013 2:23 pm

I wish to take a moment – we all should – to praise the previous Oz government, which, through the carbon tax, saved the world from .00000000000000000000000000000000001 degree of warming, or at least some amount indistinguishable from that.

September 17, 2013 2:36 pm

It must be remembered that the previous government has ensured that this government will need a lot of time to dismantle some things.

el gordo
September 17, 2013 2:55 pm

Because so many people have been brainwashed into thinking CO2 causes global warming that the new Australian government is going to ease them down slowly.
Their Direct Action Plan is a total waste of money, as is the Green Army, but hopefully by the time of the next election they won’t be on the political platform. It really depends on how sharp the global cooling tipping point is.

High Treason
September 17, 2013 3:14 pm

I suspect Tony Abbott knows AGW is BS. He just sprouts the crap because he did not want to alienate voters who have been brainwashed in to believing the lies.Just hope they can get the message out slowly but surely that the whole AGW thing is a fraud of epic proportions to take our freedom. Still reckon the chief AGW promulgators should be publicly exposed as frauds and stripped of all entitlements.Do note, the Left wing media have not been reporting the leaked IPCC revelations that they got it wrong. The ABC in particular is abusing its charter. Hope Tony gets rid of the ABC. I wonder if all those unemployable Lefty journalists can live off their dole cheques! Do note, the minor Senate parties are right wing and now will have the balance of power. They are likely to torpedo Tony Abbott’s reckless election promises Australia cannot afford.

September 17, 2013 3:16 pm

True enough Noelene and el gordo

William Astley
September 17, 2013 3:25 pm

SideShowBob says:
September 17, 2013 at 1:34 am
We’re fast moving to a situation were renewables are cheaper than burning coal, (not even including the death and lung disease from particulate pollution) …
Reality is reality. Green energy scams are not competitive. The solar power is roughly 10 times more expensive, than coal or natural gas power.
You do not understand how utilities earn money. You also do not understand that the prices of solar modules are going down as there is excess manufacturing capacity, due to a reduction in demand due to a reduction in subsides.
If you read through the article you are quoting, there is no data, no details, on the cost of solar vs combined cycle natural gas or compared to coal.
Excel is installing solar as they can recover the capital cost for the solar installations plus their rate base return on investment. As the article notes Excel has wised up to fact that they as a utility are better to pay for the solar modules and pass the capital costs on to their customers than have their customers install solar modules and pass the cost on to other customers.
In the end the cost of electric power goes up not, down. That is main point.
A problem with utilities is they must build to maintain non-depreciate capital investment to earn a return.
The following is an example of green scam economics. The Canadian province of Ontario pays $0.549 per kilowatt/hour under a 20 year contract for solar power, the cost of power in Ontario varies between $0.025/kilowatt-hour to $0.10/kilowatt-hour.
Solar power cannot compete with nuclear, natural gas, or coal generated power without massive subsides.
Taking out a second mortgage on his home, Mr. Basaria paid $38,000 to have a photovoltaic system installed on his roof at the end of July. The silicon panels can produce up to eight kilowatts of electricity for which the Ontario Power Authority pays 54.9 cents a kilowatt/hour under a 20-year contract, part of the province’s feed-in-tariff program designed to boost the supply of renewable power.
As noted in this article, the cost of power in Ontario is $0.025/kilowatt-hour to $0.10/kilowatt-hour as compared to subsidized cost of solar of $0.549/kilowatt-hour.
In April, renewable energy accounted for a record-setting 54% of the electricity generated in Spain, nearly tripling its share of the pie from just 19% in 2006. The associated economics are something akin to the apocalypse. … ….Spain calls it the “tariff deficit,” a massive debt that accumulated over the past decade as the cost of running the country’s electrical system exceeded the revenues generated by sales of power. … ….In May, the tariff deficit reached a whopping $34 billion.
In 2007, Spain paid a premium of $556 per megawatt-hour for electricity that rooftop solar panels supplied to the electric grid, compared with an average $52 paid to competing coal- or gas-fired power plants. By 2012, a whopping $10.6 billion in subsidies were paid out to the renewable energy industry, rising by about 20% from the previous year, and covering more than one third of all electricity generated in Spain.

Bruce Cobb
September 17, 2013 3:46 pm

“Climate Change Ministry”. Also known as the Ministry of Truth.

September 17, 2013 4:02 pm

Richard Courtney, re your question about Parliamentary scrutiny of departments and agencies:
The principal form of scrutiny is via Senate Estimates committees, which scrutinise the budgets and expenditures of federal government agencies, and usually convene quarterly. They are based on the Ministerial portfolios of the current government. So, no matter what the function or agency is called, if it spends public money, it is subject to scrutiny by the relevant Senate committee (all agencies and functions are nominally assigned to a Minister by dint of the Administrative Orders, which list the legislation that each Minister is responsible for.)
These committees require senior public sector employees and their Ministers to answer questions about pretty much anything that Senators care to ask about relevant to the agency. The only no-go areas are policy – which is the Minister’s sole responsibility – and also some matters pertaining to personal privacy or commercial confidentiality might only be discussed in camera.
Many a juicy scandal has been exposed in this way.
There are House of Representatives committees on various things as well, but for historical reasons the Senate committees do most of the hard yards. As they are bipartisan, a government cannot prevent senators from other parties from asking, and receiving answers to, any question within the bounds of the Committee’s ambit.

September 17, 2013 4:27 pm

Thankyou very much for the answer to my question you provided at September 17, 2013 at 4:02 pm.
You have answered both my question and the reason for it; viz. in your system the Parliamentary oversight of the activity is not reduced by subsuming the activity into another Department.
This gives me some confidence that removal of the post of Minister For Climate Change does have a real affect on policy and not merely on the oversight of policy.
Again, thankyou.

September 17, 2013 4:29 pm

Personally, I won’t believe it until it happens. And knowing what antipodean politics is like, I’m not holding my breath, too many people like “climateace” with an axe to grind.

September 17, 2013 4:31 pm

William Astley:
I think you have made your post at September 17, 2013 at 3:25 pm on the wrong thread. Perhaps you would care to post it again on the right one or SideShowBob may not see it.

Dr Burns
September 17, 2013 5:08 pm

It will be wonderful to see Tim Flannery sacked from his $180,000 pa, 3 days a week, job forecasting bs.

Ken B
September 17, 2013 5:08 pm

Captain Fish plants a communistic figment of fevered imagination…………The Coalition in Australia is very conservative much like the Republican Party. The National (Country) Party part of the LNP alliance grew out of the hard nosed farmers who have battled with our harsh Australian climate and know well what it means to survive droughts and floods, dust storms, and plant to seasonal changes and sell their products in capricious world markets. Very pragmatic and sensible people who don’t buy the left wing garbage that sometimes captures the urban environments of soft city dwellers seduced by the something for nothing social orders of high spending Labor governments, propped up by the regulators (Green Left wing) who would destroy industry rather than work with it to grow a vibrant economy.
The Liberal National coalition Party works with nature and with business and have pledged to grow the economy, remove the strangling red tape of petty regulation, stop stupid waste and excesses by providing good governance for the people of Australia.
The voters gave them a mandate to do this with a majority in the Legislative Assembly, though qualified in the upper house (traditional house of review) where they will need to work with a stronger more right wing elected majority in the Senate to ensure the job is done.
They don’t have the absolute majority in both houses to ram through any half baked “sounds like a good idea at the time” legislation, so need to work with voters to achieve, and that is not a bad thing by Australian standards.

Mac the Knife
September 17, 2013 5:13 pm

“Direct Action Plan”? “Green Army”??? YIKES!
When do the ‘re-education camps’ open and the pogroms begin for those that fail to see the light??!!! This does NOT sound like a major policy shift away from the AGW agenda but I’ll leave it to the OZ residents to explain how this is ‘better’. For their sake and ours, I truly hope it is!

R. de Haan
September 17, 2013 5:23 pm

“The end is near down under! Australia dissolves their Climate Change Ministry”
No it isn’t. At least not in the way mentioned by the article.
The climate change hubris is only a small aspect of the Agenda currently under execution.
Just read UN Agenda 21 and for details which includes the current banking crises, mass immigration (especially from islamic countries), peak oil hubris, centralized control over all our natural assets and population reduction, their final objective.
All the real damage has been done already. The West is living on borrowed time, there is no economic recovery and the execution of the Agenda will continue, with or without the climate hubris. Besides that am not at all sure Australia is going to make a 180 on the subject.
I have to see it before I believe it.

September 17, 2013 5:41 pm

For those who are worried, don’t be about the ‘Green army’
Ignoring climate change for the moment, the idea is for a group of paid Aussies to go around planting trees, cleaning waterways, removing pest species etc. This will have REAL environmental outcomes for us….. something that is really really needed. It will benefit Aussies for decades.
It is in no way a ‘bad’ thing. 🙂

Larry Kirk
September 17, 2013 6:09 pm

Green Army? I have just sent my socially-isolated 20 year old son off to join it! I know the girls on the left are much more fun, but even pulling shopping trolleys out of organic sludge for the Libs has got to be a bit of a laugh..

September 17, 2013 6:25 pm

Tony Abbott’s direct action policy, among other things, rejects carbon taxes and cap-and-trade – both of which involve penalties to drive down emissions. Instead it gives credits as positive incentives for reduced emissions. This scheme is associated with Danny Price of Frontier Economics. Our big state New South Wales had such a scheme introduced by Bob Carr who was of the Labor Party. The scheme is claimed to have worked well there. In Abbott’s hands direct action can be seen as a precautionary measure framed to have the least undesirable side effects while deflecting Green critics claiming that his government is not doing anything or enough on CAGW.

September 17, 2013 6:26 pm

The Greens (and the ‘greens’, no cap) are currently wetting themselves over the pre-ordained fact that Abbot will be dismantling the ‘green agenda’. Good riddance. Just a peek at the billion-dollar savings being forecast are enough to fill me with relief that my tax dollars will no longer be helping to fill the ‘green trough’.
The idea of the ‘Green Army’, where otherwise almost useless resources are used to actually do some benefit to our environment instead of destroying it with windmills, or destroying our economy all in the name of limiting trace gasses, is a breath of fresh air as well.
We have a long way to go pay off the excesses of the past few years of government, but it will be worth it.

September 17, 2013 6:51 pm

Australia has not yet changed its commitments on climate change, and the new Minister for the Environment is a warmista believer. Incoming environment minister Greg Hunt says the new Coalition government is committed to clean energy targets despite its plan to scrap several government bodies set up to tackle climate change.
His website says: he Coalition’s Climate Action, Environment and Heritage policy rests on four pillars:
– Direct Action on Climate, including the Emissions Reduction Fund, One Million Solar Roofs and the planting of 20 million trees
– Clean Land Plan, including the establishment of a Green Army, Landcare Recovery and a One-Stop-Shop for environmental approvals
– Clean Water, including the Murray-Darling Plan, a Plan for Water Security and the Reef 2050 vision
– A National Heritage Plan encompassing community heritage and national heritage icons

September 17, 2013 6:54 pm

Alan Jones and “Lord” Monkton are nuts. My angry Grandfather likes them… he’s a bit senile though so we excuse him 🙂

Bush bunny
September 17, 2013 7:28 pm

The New senate members don’t take over until July 1st 2014, but when they do the minor parties, will vote for the abolition of the carbon tax. The Green Army is a good idea and should please the Greens. As far as Tim Flannery is concerned, I think you will find he will find something, although he’s not as well qualified as some in the AGW factions. The fine line here is that sustainability is a prime motive for Oz. Our soils have been degraded in some areas and the PM has said soil science is a must. The use of super phosphate fertilizer has ruined some soils, as it kills microbiology, and is a quick fix for encouraging plants to grow. Also the idea that water holding properties in some soils must be adopted. Less deep tillage and turning the stubble into the earth. Cell grazing to stop worms killing stock. Free range animals and avoid factory farming. (It’s cruel if you have been to a pig farm? Or battery egg facility.) Enough to make you revise how the meat you eat is bred and kept alive until slaughter. The problem is we have so many climate regions in Australia. You go 50 miles from the coast and the precipitation levels change a lot depending on elevation. In New England we do get more rain high up, and sometimes snow, but nearly all areas 100 miles from the coast get hoar frost and low temps at night. But on the Northern Tablelands because of the soil types, we don’t grow crops, like wheat etc., but one hundred miles down towards Tamworth and the NW slopes, they do. We grow potatoes, stone fruits, tomatoes under glass domes, fine wool and fat lambs, pigs, and cattle. We do have a lot of solar panels, but a recent wind farm was declared not viable. The winds are too strong sometimes for them. But a blind belief that AGW is reality is going, and obviously we must pay attention to sustainability and pollution.

September 17, 2013 7:30 pm

TG. Maybe your grandfather is a wise man, and you are the fool.

September 17, 2013 7:41 pm

Sub tropical pockets anywhere, have to be maintained by stable temps, protected and good rain. Down in Cornwall and the Scilly Islands in S W England, there are lots of sub tropical pockets. Because of the Gulf Stream warming the region. But it is still temperate overall, even in the New England region near Dorrigo, the National Park there has sub tropical spots and temperate rain forests.
I have a palm tree growing in front of my house, a cotton palm, and fan palms grow here too. A warning to gardeners. A cotton palm I bought for a ten dollar pot plant was planted out 10 years ago as it wasn’t doing well inside and it is a monster now with barbed stems. “Who planted that dam thing there, is a good saying”

September 17, 2013 10:20 pm

Australian taxpayers also ought to be thankful that Tony Abbott warned the Clean Energy Finance Corporation before the election not to make any commitments, because he would unwind them. This was a $10 billion boondoggle for uneconomic “renewable energy” projects which readers in the US and UK should be familiar with. It is on the list of agencies to be abolished.
Paranoid fears about the Green Army are unwarranted. There is plenty of genuine environmental work, such as weed and feral pest control, revegetation, and cleaning up degraded lakes and waterways, to keep them busy. CO2 emissions will not be a priority, and it will offer jobs to people (including Aboriginal people) outside the cities where unemployment is high.
I have no illusions that this government will deliver everything everyone wants. It is simply impossible for any government to do that. But, boy, we have turned onto a new page, and it is a great relief. The tacit and overt government support for every anti-everything greenie is no longer a given.

September 17, 2013 11:01 pm

There is plenty of genuine environmental work, such as weed and feral pest control, revegetation, and cleaning up degraded lakes and waterways, to keep them busy.
So there’s hope for Nick Stokes then ?

Graham of Sydney
September 18, 2013 12:21 am

“The end is near down under?” If only. New Environment Minister, Greg Hunt, is a rusted on climate catastrophist. His “Direct Action” policy is as mad and bad as the doomed carbon tax. One stupidity follows another.

September 18, 2013 2:11 am

Graham are you sure? There is a senator who is a skeptic lined up to be science minister. To keep the Greens pacified, one doesn’t require to appear skeptical? However, I had a email from Julie Bishop last year about the CERN report, and they knew about it it seems, but said they were dedicated in controlling Greenhouse gases. I replied, ‘They are not your worry?, etc’ but anyway, I am sure many skeptical scientists will be advising the Environment minister. But their direct action does involve planting trees, which is great for wild life corridors, but until they reach some form of maturity they have to be cared for and watered. For example, a student friend of mine, sat her Diploma of Organic Agricultural production (not certified but sustainable farming). She was given a $40,000 grant, to build more dams, provided she planted 800 native trees, which she did willingly. But she said, I just hope the rabbits and kangeroos don’t get them before they mature. If they are not protected, cattle will eat the baby trees too. Hard one.

September 18, 2013 3:30 am

So it is slightly less of the same. And I thought Abbot had balls. Obviously not.

Graham of Sydney
September 18, 2013 5:03 am

bushbunny @ September 18, 2013 at 2:11 am
Thoughtful response, bushbunny. Yes, on the face of it at least, planting trees is a good idea at any time. But surely not in the name of the fallacy and farce of climate alarmism that borders on fraud. Instead, call it environmental sustainability, pure and simple. I’m sure your student friend would be happy with that.
Even so, there are problems. In addition to the ones that you nominate, there is the real prospect that the lure of tax dollars for planting trees will tempt farmers to sacrifice essential crops for less useful trees. Parallel schemes in Europe (and to a lesser extent here), where crops were swapped for solar and wind energy, have left farmers in the lurch when subsidies were cut because of exorbitant power costs.
There’s every reason to expect that trees for crops will suffer the same fate. Wine can hardly be classified as an essential crop, so the story in The Australian to-day is not the best example, but it does indicate what’s in store, notwithstanding Hunt’s reassurances. Down the track, when the federal budget is strained no less than now, he may well sing a different tune!

September 18, 2013 5:09 am

Maybe already linked but David Suzuki has a piece in todays SMH titled “Tony Abbott will doom future generations if he ditches carbon tax”
I’m sure the SMH will publish a piece from a climate skeptic in the name of balanced reporting….

September 18, 2013 7:15 am

Give Tony Abbott the Nobel Prize for Peace!!

Paul Coppin
September 18, 2013 10:29 am

philincalifornia says:
September 17, 2013 at 11:01 pm
So there’s hope for Nick Stokes then ?
Haseler: We Are All Australians… Does this mean you are now an illegal alien where you are, and have to apply for landed immigrant status? (and make income tax filings in two places…)

Brian H
September 18, 2013 10:58 am

Carbon targets are goofy. China et al will drive CO2 levels up, to the great benefit of agriculture worldwide. In fact, Australia’s coal exports will help considerably in this project.

September 18, 2013 11:33 am

The moving finger has written on the wall; you have been weighed in the scales and you have been found wanting.
Global Warmers & Co., tuck your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.

September 18, 2013 8:25 pm
Geoff Connolly
September 18, 2013 8:59 pm

Sorry to disappoint all of the doubters:
Coalition delivers on promise to axe Climate Commission
At least you weren’t kept hanging long.

September 18, 2013 9:44 pm

Graham of Sydney, yes I agree, carbon farming is no substitute for animal husbandry and crops. Soil science and generally improving the soils properly including land degradation, moisture conservation and avoiding chemicals be they fertilizers (plenty of organic fertilizers and minerals that do the job better) herbicides and insecticides, that increase the soil microbiology that sustains plant or pasture growth. It is not rocket science, just education of farmers stuck in the older ways.
But farmers are not stupid, this carbon farming idea from what I have heard is a one off payment?
There was one farmer who said for $15 k a year per turbine, he would rent his land to wind farm project, but was told, forget you will be isolated by your neighbours. I planted 80 trees along my drive way once, and the next day they were all gone. I couldn’t understand why until one rural old hack pointed to the 10 cattle grazing in the paddock. Young trees were planted in a reserve and not one survived, 600 of them, because no one cared for them. And as far as carbon dioxide being soaked up from the atmosphere, it is only young trees (as in a rain forest) that use more up. Older trees store it in the ground. I think planting trees is OK, but it won’t be proven for 5 years IF the trees survive. And I don’t think farmers are going to go around each day and water the saplings.

September 18, 2013 10:21 pm

Tim Flannery is a dope and con man. He is known at my former university. He changed his mind regarding mega fauna die out in Australia,from being similar to elephants dieing en mass in Africa. They didn’t die of thirst (although it was a drought of course) but they ate themselves into starvation afraid to move from the only water hole. Made some sense to. But 20 years later, he blamed it on the Aborigines. Altering the data and time scale. Recently this hypothesis has been proven wrong, they died out because of environmental changes, and like elephants they only bred every five years or so. They were marsupials, that hold fertilized eggs until it is suitable to bring them into their pouch. Human intervention would have made them more vulnerable if they shared the only water holes drying up, but only one skeleton was found with an spear head in it around an old water hole. So he writes to please the public and impress his sponsors. Gud riddens.

September 18, 2013 10:26 pm

The Coalition Government also wants to dump the Climate Change Authority, which was set up in 2012 to provide independent advice to the government on the carbon price and emissions reductions targets.
Mr Hunt yesterday instructed his department to begin drafting repeal legislation to abolish the authority, in keeping with its over-riding plan to scrap the carbon pricing scheme.
In what is likely to be a harder task, the Government has also announced it is preparing legislation to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).
Also set up in 2012, it has been provided with $10 billion in funding over five years to support private investment in renewable energy.
Yesterday, Treasurer Joe Hockey told his department to prepare the required legislation to axe the CEFC, and wrote to the chair requesting cooperation in suspending all further investments.
However, the Australian Conservation Foundation has released legal advice that the CEFC is “obliged to follow its legislated mandate and cannot be frustrated in that regard by attempted ministerial interference”.
It also says the board “would be obliged to ignore” any direction to cease operations.
The Greens have said they will oppose any bid to abolish the CEFC.

Lars P
September 21, 2013 11:37 am

There was this vision of future of the australian carbon footprint which became reality:

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights