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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/09/europe-bails-on-green-energy/
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/07/15/spain-cuts-green-energy-losses/
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy (William: US) companies:)
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/ecotality-fatality-green-company-files-bankruptcy-/
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/09/three-solar-firms-file-for-bankruptcy-in-a-week/
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?]
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?
@Mike Haseler – Voting is mandatory in Australia, so that means you can be fined or jailed for not voting! 😉
Biting irony that Reuters Point Carbon has to report on this deconstruction of the climatocrats’ kleptocracy down under…
The direct action plan is a carrot. It’s a 7 year itch of lip service.
philjourdan says: “@Mike 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!
@Mike – that works in Chicago. 😉
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.
@Mike Haseler. You’ve just discovered where you were born ! How is that possible ?
Are you sure your surname isn’t Obama ?
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.
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 ?
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
True enough Noelene and el gordo
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) …
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/us-utility-chooses-wind-and-solar-cheaper-and-more-reliable-79876
William:
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.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/breakthrough/the-sun-may-finally-shine-on-solar-power/article14382278/
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.
http://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2013/09/03/ontario_power_fee_sets_new_record.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2013/08/16/no-end-in-sight-for-spains-escalating-solar-crisis/
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.
“Climate Change Ministry”. Also known as the Ministry of Truth.
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.
johanna:
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.
Richard
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.
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.
Richard
It will be wonderful to see Tim Flannery sacked from his $180,000 pa, 3 days a week, job forecasting bs.