Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Sadly this statement was made by skeptic Aussie Federal Senator Matt Canavan rather than Prime Minister Scott Morrison. But it is reassuring that some senior politicians in Australia plan to stand up to the new wave of global climate bullying.
‘Punch in the face’: Canavan lashes foreign powers over net zero
Australia should stand up to foreign powers threatening to ‘punch it in the face’ over climate change, an outspoken Nationals senator says. Finn McHugh
Australia should stand up to foreign powers threatening to “punch it in the face” over climate change, an outspoken Nationals senator says.
National MPs have threatened a revolt after Scott Morrison flagged a softening position on a 2050 net zero emissions target.
The Prime Minister said technology would drive Australia’s bid to reduce carbon emissions, but the government has yet to commit to a net zero target.
The shifting language comes as Australia is locked in negotiations for free trade agreements with the European Union and UK, which have both committed to the target.
But Senator Canavan said Australia should “stand up” to foreign powers making trade contingent on emissions reduction.
“That’s bullying: give us your lunch money or we’re going to punch you in the face,” he told Sky News.
“This is ridiculous and I’m not going to take lectures from other countries that have not met their targets.
“I don’t think they’ve got any moral high ground to make those arguments.”
…
Read more: https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/punch-in-the-face-canavan-lashes-foreign-powers-over-net-zero/news-story/3a0f72b6313da330913453fc3178ccd2
I met Nigel Farage several times while I was living in Britain, and totally supported his push for Brexit. But Britain’s push to include climate action conditions in the new trade treaties they want to sign with everyone is absurd. Boris can have his trade treaty with Australia when he gets off his high horse.
As for Europe, given the state of European economies after all their Covid lockdowns and decades of economic mismanagement, nobody really cares what they think. The value of Australia’s exports to Europe is less than half of what Australia earns every year from coal exports.
Eric,
If only President Biden would say he is not going to take lectures from countries that have not met their targets.
Largely all of them.
Or is the US exempt from lectures now that it has rejoined the Paris Accord?
Joe listens to China.
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3047071/donald-trump-says-he-and-chinas-xi-jinping-love-each-other
With Putin it was even bigger
Nope
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/01/how-trump-appeased-russia.html
“Or is the US exempt from lectures now that it has rejoined the Paris Accord?”
I imagine the EU will want to connect CO2 to trade with the U.S.
Trump threatened to impose tariffs on the EU if they imposed penalties on the U.S. over CO2.
Biden will probably be happy to go along with what the EU wants.
There are now so many trotters in Biden’s trough, there will be nothing but empty promises (and no pork) for most of his term.
Good luck getting CO2 taxes through Congress, Democrat or not.
I agree with that.
But we do have a lot of Republicans who don’t really know where they stand on Human-caused Climate Change, so are subject to being swayed, and the UN and the EU will probably be putting pressure on all nations to adopt a CO2 tax.
If Republicans stand strong, then there won’t be a CO2 tax. That makes me a little nervous. The “standing strong part, I mean. 🙂
One good thing is when you say “taxes” around Republicans, they are naturally repelled.
The Democrats are going to say CO2 will destroy the world in nine years if we don’t get this tax. Let’s see how the Republican politicians react to that claim.
Honeymoon period – they’re all being polite in the hope Joe will point the money hose their direction.
Ironically for all the criticism of Trump for his stance on the Paris agreement under his leadership the US were one of the few countries in the world to see reduction in emissions due to the use of franking to extract gas. At the same time they were able to become energy independent. Its bizarre that under Biden he is moving to undo all of the good that Trump has done in getting US into that position.
i saw elsewhere (science alert) an item claiming that the usa has been under rating its emissions from cities etc
not sure if its one i sent to Charles? was about 3 days ago now
I laughed
What did you expect? For all his bluster Trump took scientific advice and was a reformer. Biden and the Democrats have shown that they are just reactionaries, NOT progressives!
People need to get over any thought that Biden is in control of anything. He’s the absolute epitome of an empty suit, a puppet and a pawn. He hasn’t initiated an independent idea or thought in nearly 50 years. What gives people the idea he’ll start now?
If you want to know what Biden’s administration will do, you must study the policies of those around him (or just ask Obama’s team).
yeah its basically the same ohbummer names n faces just a colourchange of the main player(and i DO mean player)
Better yet, “I’m not going to take lectures from other countries that think the sky is falling.”
Matt is missing the point it isn’t important you do anything it is just important you agree with the left loons. That is why so many of the whacky left loon celebrities and politicians have carbon footprints of small nations but are the darlings of the left loons.
UN/IPCC was formed in 1988….to force countries to lower emissions….USA emission are almost exactly what it was in 1988…..we didn’t cause any global warming in the past 33 years (actually more like over 50 years)
…almost all of the increase has come from China >
…and China has had a 100% total free ride to do anything they damn well please….we get blamed…and we have to do something
Start a movement to call China/UN/IPCC out on this crap/scam….and see how fast it goes away
(image Latitude included with the comment)
World fossil carbon dioxide emissions 1751-2017
Lets not sweep anything under the carpet.
I’d like to hear how data for 1751 was verified.
Yeah me too given actual measurements did not start until the 1950’s.
WOW, look how TINY Australia’s contribution is
You do know Australia is a NET CARBON SINK, don’t you, little monkey !!
Human carbon emissions are in the margin of error for the natural carbon cycle
No, not really. Humans have emitted twice as much as the increase since 1850. A 45% increase.
GREAT NEWS for all life on Earth, hey loy-dumb
As you have proven MANY, MANY time, atmospheric CO2 is nothing but totally beneficial.
So much of that *TINY human amount of CO2*, has been GOBBLED UP by CO2 luving plant life.
(*compared to the every increasing CO2 released by NATURE as the Earth warms very slightly from solar energy)
Human CO2 is just “NOISE” on top of natural increases.
what a lying little piece of work….
The humans you’re talking about are for the most part China
The USA has not contributed one CO2 molecule to any increase in CO2 in over 50 years…all of the increase has come from China and the developing countries
50 years ago…CO2 levels were ~325ppm….that was considered safe…remember 350.org?….well I do
Left up to the USA that is exactly where CO2 levels would be right now
…again…call and spade and spade….stop this scam…start blaming China/UN/IPCC..because they are the ones responsible for every bit of the increase…..and this scam will be over
and the scam has been move money and power from day one
“Who has contributed most to global CO2 emissions?”
Lemme see – Pacific Ocean? Atlantic Ocean? Indian Ocean? Southern Ocean?
techtonic plate boundaries?
LLoydo – what is the point of your comment here ?. Are you suggesting that a country that emits 30% of all CO2 should be given a break because of less historical emissions ?. If yes, then you obviously don’t care about rising CO2 emissions now or in the future.
You are so right there.
Loy-dumb KNOWS that CO2 doesn’t influence climate.
It is just that he has to maintain the socialist/marxist political narrative.
Doesn’t matter who did what. What matters is whether CO2 emissions are harmful. They’re not!
Are you arguing that until every country has emitted as much CO2 as the US has, that they can continue to produce as much CO2 as they want?
So much for your claims that CO2 emissions are a problem. You have just admitted that the whole scam is nothing more than redistributing the wealth away from the capitalist countries that created it.
Let’s also not sweep under the carpet the fact that the United States has created more wealth than any other nation in history – not just domestically, but, after saving an ungrateful world from Fascism and Imperial military dictatorship, rebuilt it from ruins to luxury status. All of that takes the expenditure of a lot of energy.
You’re welcome.
Let’s not and thank you. Cheap abundant fossil fuel use has allowed extraordinary wealth creation for those lucky enough to be born in the right time and place. But there’s the rub: wealth creation and CO2 emissions are inseparable; historic CO2 emissions can’t be swept under the carpet while we congratulate ourselves on our historic economic growth and our standard of living. Thinking we can just zero the count 50 years ago and start from there is delusional.
Who’s surprised India and China, with a quarter of the world’s population, look at that historic growth/emission history and say wait a minute…
Do I think India and China should push on to emit as much per capita as me, you, Eric and platitude in the west? No, but telling a billion peasants to cut back so we can maintain our lifestyle doesn’t sound very persausive either. I suppose humans could continue on a fossil fuel spree and see what hapens; what could possibly go wrong.
SO WHAT
CO2 is only BENEFICIAL to the planet..
.. so its very much a WIN-WIN situation.
What you are saying is that wealth creation GREEN’S THE PLANET..
.Thinking that it actually matters….. is DELUSIONAL.
.Nothing has so far, world is GREENING,
… economies are expanding, thanks to fossil fuels,
… people are benefiting from fossil fuel’s CONSISTENCY of supply.
(until the anti-CO2 agenda takes hold, that is)
So come on, loy-dumb, what could possibly go wrong?..
(with scientific evidence to back your silly little fantasies, of course.)
So you would DENY those countries the right to the lifestyle that the west has been able to develop using fossil fuels.
What sort of a RACIST low-life are you !!! !!
Yep – shame on the West for helping everyone achieve a better standard of living.
China is doing FAR more than the socialist west is nowadays.
And yes, they will also get far more out of it.
So why sweep it under the carpet?
WTH are you yabbering about this time ?
Sweep what under the carpet ?
Your comments ?
Would get a dig mound of empty fluff and dead brain cells !
As an Australian and one of those in Oceania I say it’s only fair we get to emit much more than we currently have so why are all the green losers and lefttards demanding we cut our emissions.
I demand equality … we already have the handicap of fewer people so to get our share of the emission pie we clearly need to emit more. If we can’t emit more I demand compensation because we are the victims on that and as you say don’t brush anything under the carpet.
“So why sweep it under the carpet?” why post some bulls#1t graph to try and deflect from the truth?
..the USA has not contributed one single CO2 molecule to the increase in over 50 years
Because it isn’t relevant.
The reality is that those targets will never be made with strictly solar and wind power, nuclear power would help but the nutjob envirowackos won’t allow it. Sooner or later they will have to turn back to fossil fuels to fill the gap.
After enough damage to the economy and environment the citizens will throw them out. I still don’t believe that as a nation they will commit national suicide.
Fantastic. Quoting the Australian paliament’s most intense coal lover. Just like nuclear advocates, he loves subsidies. He’s all in favor of the Oz government subsidising a large coal plant, that no bank will touch, and is as polular as rabies. “Standing up” to foreign powers will mean extra taxes on Australian exports. Whether the conservatives like it ot not, it’s going to have to be net zero by 2050, or the penalties will be harsh.
That’s provided the AGW true believers are able to maintain the fraud for another 30 years without the public having them all justifiably tarred and feathered.
As Abraham Lincoln said …
Anyone who still believes in human caused global warming is an uninformed fool.
Let me repeat that .. in bold
Do you relate to being that, stony ?
Either way Australia loses – coal exports earn Australia around $60 billion per year.
and today exon whatever announced shutting down the Altona refinery
so now were even less able to process fuel and it will be rejigged to an import terminal
the stupidity/effronerty to claim its NOT economically viable is utter crap
standard petrol is rising again and is 1.27 a litre 4.5 litres to a uk gallon
At least a new coal fired power station would CONTRIBUTE to the supply and STABILITY of the East coast NEM.
Wind and solar, do not contribute, EVER. !!
Like any leftist ideology. its TAKE, TAKE, TAKE.
Well before 2050, REALITY will have hit and the anti-CO2 AGW will be over.
Net Zero??? Australia is ALREADY a net carbon sink
And we are 25 Million people and 1% of world emissions take it up with the big emitters and when they have got there emissions down we will take action.
Which was essentially ex PM John Howard’s policy.
So they pay more for Australian goods ????.
Let’s look at our exports and see who wants to PAY MORE.
Iron ore
Coal,
Gas
Gold,
Aluminium ores
Beef
Then we get into the smaller stuff.
You are living in a fantasy world, stony. !
Well, you are partly right. Not based on any science AT ALL, the ANZ will not fund coal in Newcastle, NSW, anymore. More fool them! I am glad I moved my business away from them. Same too Woolworths, going “carbon neutral”, I will buy my food elsewhere when they do.
uh huh
a few vocal petition signers managed to make the banks leaders pack sh*t and give into their wild claims
they thought theyd lose a cent or two
more people will LEAVE anz than they gain
the protesty types dont have much money usually
”Whether the conservatives like it ot not, it’s going to have to be net zero by 2050, or the penalties will be harsh.”
No large economy will be ”net zero” (whatever that means) by 2050.
The absolute IMPOSSIBILITY of getting to “net zero” EVER, without a major advancement in energy technology, totally eludes these brain-hosed fools !!
It can certainly NEVER be done using wind and solar.
The size of installations needed and the continued replacement would probably emit more carbon than now, by many factors.
And let’s not even mention the massive amount of pollution and waste that will be created.
The term “net zero” is an accounting term. If Australia can “account” for negative emissions (Such as exporting industry, agriculture etc etc) all is good and everything is “fine”.
I have one word to describe this policy: Bollox!
“Net zero” is a BS term used to fool the gullible into believing something is being done to stop “harmful CO2 emissions”
What about the subsidies to wind and solar, and the drag they are on the Australian economy and consumers? Do you agree with them?
LOL what penalties the most world governments will be in recession for the next 20 years and none of them will have the balls to get into a trade war. You leftist idiots are the only ones who believe that anyone will really give a rats about 2050 targets.
We call your bluff … try to get some country to punish us.
I should add a trade war with the EU would be a real bonus for Australia we have a trade deficit of $27 Billion with them and with tarrifs on all the European junk the high end manufacturing might make a comeback.
First government regulations make something unprofitable.
Then the government discovers that this something is actually important, so instead of cutting back the regulations, the government then subsidizes that something so it can afford the regulations.
That’s the socialist way.
Not so fast. Two oil refineries in the State of Victoria are going to close.
One refinery closing , leaving 2 left for the entire country, one in Vic and the other in Qld
You forgot Western Australia. Capacity to supply down 25% nationwide meaning: Higher prices!
Reporters are blaming Shouty (Morrison, Federal Govn’t) but it was Chairman Dan (Victoria state Govn’t) that caused the closure in Victoria (ExxonMobil now claiming COVID-19 lockdown was the main reason for their decision).
andr OOZE needs taking out behind the shed and being told…repeatedly
then fired
Good luck with that. Such investments do not come back once closed due to their size and cost. Some refinery capacity loss in the U.S. will also play into the coming howls of inflation at the consumer level. While that may have some timing benefit for EVs, the howls will drown that out and each token statement about climate change will get more attention and backlash this time. A storm is coming for politicos and they don’t see it coming this time.
Well, Shouty (Mirrison), the Aussie PM has stated a net zero “carbon” target for 2050. He’ll be long gone on full taxpayer benefits, so he does not give a rats.
Australia is already exposed to shortages of fuels with less than 90 days in reserve. So with a further 25% reduction in capacity only exposes Aus to more risks in supply.
I’m wondering why it is that a nation’s carbon emissions are counted because the emissions happened in that country when, like China, much of the emissions are the result of producing products for other nations. I should think it’s the consuming nation that should account for those emissions. Here in Massachusetts- the state government brags that the state has the lowest per capita emissions of any state- or close to that of CA. But this state used to be an industrial power house. Now, every town and city has dozens of empty factory buildings- the state now produces few products. It’s economy is dominated by government agencies, world class hospitals, univerisities and software firms- none producing high volumes of carbon emissions- but the state is wealthy. We import just about everything. I keep telling state officials to stop bragging about low carbon emissions if we import everything from China- that the state must count the emissions due to the production of those products. Of course they ignore me. One thing we could produce here is wood products. The state is still more than 2/3 forest. Most is unmanaged. The state imports almost all wood products. The climatistas here demand that we never cut trees- though they live in nice wood homes with wood furniture and paper products. So as long as the state produces little a low level of carbon emissions it’s OK to live a high standard of living. Of course it’s fine to have a high standard of living- but if the state is going to brag how great we are to save the Earth- it’s only correct to count the emissions of what we consume. Personally, I have no concern about carbon emissions but I am concerned that we exported all the factories.
South Australia has managed to achieve the same result by investing heavily in renewables with the resulting high cost and unreliability of their electricity then driving away manufacturing.
The leftist greentards call it decarbonization – most sensible people would recognize it as deindustrialization.
“Now, every town and city has dozens of empty factory buildings- the state now produces few products.”
Not only factories. The other SC@M going on at the moment, COVID-19, forced many employers of “white” collar workers to work from home. Office buildings standing largely empty are now being considered for re-zoning as residential.
Almost every day I discover how utterly bad the RT-PCR test is and how Govn’t and media are misinforming the public and most are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
Here’s the answer to the problem–just farm out the oil development to another country.
Abu Dhabi Banks on Decades of Oil Use in Cosmo Exploration Award (yahoo.com)
Changing times (and temps) require changing targets…..
HONG KONG—China’s ban on Australian coal imports is intensifying a crisis in its coal market, which is battling surging prices, supply shortages, conflicting policy goals and a cold winter.
Locked in a diplomatic brawl over Canberra’s call for an independent global inquiry into the origins of Covid-19, Beijing imposed an informal ban around September that forced boatloads of Australian coal to languish at sea. China’s central government made the embargo official at a mid-December meeting with major Chinese electricity producers, who are big buyers of thermal coal.
The ban complicated a supply crunch that the meeting was convened to solve, government and state media reports show. China was short of thermal coal and officials urged the companies to import more—from anywhere except Australia, China’s biggest supplier. To comply, buyers in China have had to pay steep premiums for imports from farther afield, on top of prices that have risen 84% since midyear.
“Coal buyers are on tenterhooks watching the import market,” the China Coal Transportation and Distribution Association, which represents importers, said in a statement. “It’s been hard to replenish low coal inventory and shortages, while demand is unabated.”
WSJ
Careful, Bloomberg may come after you with hired law firms.
How ’bout lectures from the UN IPCC. Those OK? Surely a good Greta scolding should be good, right?
And then there is Russia….
Russian scientists significantly improved coal-burning efficiency | EurekAlert! Science News
Good on them
Put WHO in charge of country verification.
Meanwhile in Western Australia the Liberal Opposition panders to the inner city latte set-
Coal plants to close by 2025 under WA election renewable energy plan from Liberals (msn.com)
We just have to be patient for these drongos to fail although the next gabfest in Glasgow will show Canavan to be correct in his analysis.