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

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

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!

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.

@Eve
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?

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…

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!!

“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.

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):
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/09/luciana-berger-lambasts-ed-davey-over-inaccuracies-in-his-conference-speech/

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

captainfish
http://www.liberal.org.au/creating-green-army
It must be remembered that the previous government has ensured that this government will need a lot of time to dismantle some things.

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.

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

“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!
MtK

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. 🙂

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.

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

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.

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”

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 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.

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!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/tax-gone-but-hunt-for-carbon-cash-not-forgotten-minister-emissions/story-fn9qr68y-1226721300567

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.

Tim Flannery gone, looking forward to the press conference.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbott-shuts-down-climate-commission-20130919-2u185.html

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.

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.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/federal-government-scraps-climate-commission/4968816