Gillard's flood levy in political limbo

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/27/3123429.htm?section=justin

How can the Qld Floods be a one off levy when the precedent is set. Climate Change is here and now we pay for using coal for our electricity.

All climate disasters are now paid for by a new levy.

DEFERRING tax cuts for corporate Australia was a better option than cutting environmental spending, the Greens said yesterday.

The balance-of-power party said cutting green programs "beggars belief" and called on the Government to look elsewhere for savings to pay for flood reconstruction.

The Greens' votes are crucial to Julia Gillard's chances of steering her $1.8 billion levy through Parliament.

The acting Greens leader, Tasmanian senator Christine Milne, said tax cuts for big businesses planned for July 2013 should be deferred, though tax relief for small businesses should be kept.

"This would net the Government around $1.7 billion in the forward estimates, protect low-income earners and small businesses, and enable the Government to reverse its decision to cut critical climate programs," she said.

While open to the idea of a flood levy, she called for a long-term permanent disaster relief fund.

Senator Milne's insistence that alternatives should be found to cutting green initiatives were shared by Herald Sun readers responding to an online poll yesterday.

If readers had their way, the notorious Gold Pass that guarantees lifetime free domestic airline travel for ex-politicians would be abolished immediately and the savings ploughed into relief efforts. As of last night, 35 per cent of respondents backed the idea.

The Gold Pass narrowly outpointed the ambitious National Broadband Network, into which taxpayers will pour $27.5 billion.

But economics experts supported the Government, arguing many green programs were duds that deserved to go.

"Most of the cuts are ones the Government should have made whether there were floods or not," said Saul Eslake, an economist at Melbourne's Grattan Institute. "Cash-for-clunkers was a clunker in itself."

Shadow climate change minister Greg Hunt said the Prime Minister had delivered a "massive vote of no-confidence in her own green agenda", being only too happy to offload green initiatives "under the veil of the flood recovery banner".

Victorian Council of Social Service spokeswoman Kate Colvin was concerned about cuts to the National Rental Affordability Scheme.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/big-business-not-the-environment-should-pay-for-floods-greens/story-fn6bfm6w-1225995781234



So it is about time for a real debate on climate change and how we plan to pay for all the new costs involved because of habits like using coal for electricity.

Also notice how out of step the Hard Right is ... only about a quarter agree with holding back the NBN to pay some of the cost of climate change.

---

____ wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 4:46am:

DEFERRING tax cuts for corporate Australia was a better option than cutting environmental spending, the Greens said yesterday. The balance-of-power party said cutting green programs "beggars belief" and called on the Government to look elsewhere for savings to pay for flood reconstruction. The Greens' votes are crucial to Julia Gillard's chances of steering her $1.8 billion levy through Parliament. The acting Greens leader, Tasmanian senator Christine Milne, said tax cuts for big businesses planned for July 2013 should be deferred, though tax relief for small businesses should be kept. "This would net the Government around $1.7 billion in the forward estimates, protect low-income earners and small businesses, and enable the Government to reverse its decision to cut critical climate programs," she said. While open to the idea of a flood levy, she called for a long-term permanent disaster relief fund. Senator Milne's insistence that alternatives should be found to cutting green initiatives were shared by Herald Sun readers responding to an online poll yesterday. If readers had their way, the notorious Gold Pass that guarantees lifetime free domestic airline travel for ex-politicians would be abolished immediately and the savings ploughed into relief efforts. As of last night, 35 per cent of respondents backed the idea. The Gold Pass narrowly outpointed the ambitious National Broadband Network, into which taxpayers will pour $27.5 billion. But economics experts supported the Government, arguing many green programs were duds that deserved to go. "Most of the cuts are ones the Government should have made whether there were floods or not," said Saul Eslake, an economist at Melbourne's Grattan Institute. "Cash-for-clunkers was a clunker in itself." Shadow climate change minister Greg Hunt said the Prime Minister had delivered a "massive vote of no-confidence in her own green agenda", being only too happy to offload green initiatives "under the veil of the flood recovery banner". Victorian Council of Social Service spokeswoman Kate Colvin was concerned about cuts to the National Rental Affordability Scheme. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/big-business-not-the-environment-should-pay-for-floods-greens/story-fn6bfm6w-1225995781234 So it is about time for a real debate on climate change and how we plan to pay for all the new costs involved because of habits like using coal for electricity. Also notice how out of step the Hard Right is ... only about a quarter agree with holding back the NBN to pay some of the cost of climate change.

They cut the guts out of the Solar Flagships program which was already woefully small. of all the places to cut, this was one of the worst candidates.

I predict that this levey wont pass the senate. The greens will probably oppose it.

I am handing over my 100 bucks to launch a constitutional challenge in the High court over the "Carbon Tax" since no other Aussies out there have done it yet. - Yep thats all it takes folks - wake up to yourselves and get back in the game before they tax the air you breathe. 8-)

Prevailing wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

I am handing over my 100 bucks to launch a constitutional challenge in the High court over the "Carbon Tax" since no other Aussies out there have done it yet. - Yep thats all it takes folks - wake up to yourselves and get back in the game before they tax the air you breathe. 8-)

Yeah right bill...whatever you reckon...

Prevailing wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

I am handing over my 100 bucks to launch a constitutional challenge in the High court over the "Carbon Tax" since no other Aussies out there have done it yet. - Yep thats all it takes folks - wake up to yourselves and get back in the game before they tax the air you breathe. 8-)

Wow, a hundred bucks would be a huge chunk out of your single breeders pension, mel.

skippy. wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:47pm: I am handing over my 100 bucks to launch a constitutional challenge in the High court over the "Carbon Tax" since no other Aussies out there have done it yet. - Yep thats all it takes folks - wake up to yourselves and get back in the game before they tax the air you breathe. 8-) Wow, a hundred bucks would be a huge chunk out of your single breeders pension, mel.

But its an investment in Australia and a dollar spent in the struggle against communism so I will wear the expense gladly. 8-)

Prevailing wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:53pm: Prevailing wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:47pm: I am handing over my 100 bucks to launch a constitutional challenge in the High court over the "Carbon Tax" since no other Aussies out there have done it yet. - Yep thats all it takes folks - wake up to yourselves and get back in the game before they tax the air you breathe. 8-) Wow, a hundred bucks would be a huge chunk out of your single breeders pension, mel. But its an investment in Australia and a dollar spent in the struggle against communism so I will wear the expense gladly. 8-)

I think I have a communist living in the house next door... his door is coloured red and I think he is Russian.  Can I have $100 to fight him, Prevailing?

Prevailing wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 3:57pm:

skippy. wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:53pm: Prevailing wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:47pm: I am handing over my 100 bucks to launch a constitutional challenge in the High court over the "Carbon Tax" since no other Aussies out there have done it yet. - Yep thats all it takes folks - wake up to yourselves and get back in the game before they tax the air you breathe. 8-) Wow, a hundred bucks would be a huge chunk out of your single breeders pension, mel. But its an investment in Australia and a dollar spent in the struggle against communism so I will wear the expense gladly. 8-)

You'd be better off investing in some condoms if you want to save Australia from unwanted expense,meelie.

skippy. wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:57pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:53pm: Prevailing wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:47pm: I am handing over my 100 bucks to launch a constitutional challenge in the High court over the "Carbon Tax" since no other Aussies out there have done it yet. - Yep thats all it takes folks - wake up to yourselves and get back in the game before they tax the air you breathe. 8-) Wow, a hundred bucks would be a huge chunk out of your single breeders pension, mel. But its an investment in Australia and a dollar spent in the struggle against communism so I will wear the expense gladly. 8-) You'd be better off investing in some condoms if you want to save Australia from unwanted expense,meelie.

LOL skippy, 'prevailing' isn't 'mellie'....Prevailing is crany,...our old friend 'pedo_bill'....

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 4:00pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:57pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:53pm: Prevailing wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:47pm: I am handing over my 100 bucks to launch a constitutional challenge in the High court over the "Carbon Tax" since no other Aussies out there have done it yet. - Yep thats all it takes folks - wake up to yourselves and get back in the game before they tax the air you breathe. 8-) Wow, a hundred bucks would be a huge chunk out of your single breeders pension, mel. But its an investment in Australia and a dollar spent in the struggle against communism so I will wear the expense gladly. 8-) I think I have a communist living in the house next door... his door is coloured red and I think he is Russian.  Can I have $100 to fight him, Prevailing?

No, but lets not make it any easier for Australias communists to set up and fund the unelected world governing bureaucracy with an illegal unconstitutional tax. 8-)

Prevailing wrote on Jan 28^th, 2011 at 4:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 4:00pm: Prevailing wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:57pm: skippy. wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:53pm: Prevailing wrote on Jan 28th, 2011 at 3:47pm: I am handing over my 100 bucks to launch a constitutional challenge in the High court over the "Carbon Tax" since no other Aussies out there have done it yet. - Yep thats all it takes folks - wake up to yourselves and get back in the game before they tax the air you breathe. 8-) Wow, a hundred bucks would be a huge chunk out of your single breeders pension, mel. But its an investment in Australia and a dollar spent in the struggle against communism so I will wear the expense gladly. 8-) I think I have a communist living in the house next door... his door is coloured red and I think he is Russian.  Can I have $100 to fight him, Prevailing? No, but lets not make it any easier for Australias communists to set up and fund the unelected world governing bureaucracy with an illegal unconstitutional tax. 8-)

I believe subversion charges are warranted for anyone with their hands dirty on the Carbon tax conspiracy. 8-)

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/money_down_toilet.jpg :)

for those interested,  From Get up;

'48 hours ago, the Government announced they want to pay for the climate disasters of today by killing the renewable energy projects of tomorrow.

Climate change means more extreme weather events1, so it makes sense to establish a permanent Climate Disaster Fund -- not just to respond to one off events like the recent floods.

There's a simple solution to fund reconstruction after extreme weather events, while also reducing pollution and supporting renewable energy. The Government must establish a permanent Climate Disaster Fund, paid for by ending the billions of dollars they're handing out to subsidise the use of fossil fuels2, most of which ends up in the pockets of Australia's biggest polluters.

The three Independents in the lower house all support a permanent natural disaster fund. The Government will have to negotiate with them to get its flood levy through, so we have a real chance to preserve the renewable energy programs the Government wants to cut and to set up a permanent disaster recovery fund paid for by ending polluter handouts. To save these renewable energy programs we need an immediate public outcry - please add your voice now.

Call on Prime Minister Gillard to pay for flood recovery by cutting fossil fuel handouts, not renewable energy '

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/SafeguardOurFuture

veg what fossil fuel hand outs are they reffering too thanks

____ wrote on Jan 27^th, 2011 at 6:56pm:

How can the Qld Floods be a one off levy when the precedent is set. Climate Change is here and now we pay for using coal for our electricity. All climate disasters are now paid for by a new levy.

I was up in Jurien Bay for seven days just gone.

The water was really warm.

Dad reckons he just heard on some TV program that the waters were some 4 degrees hotter for some reason now.

Sounds  a lot... he finds it even dodgier as he works at the dept of Agriculture and has a modicum of scioentific understanding.he reckoned that 'they' were worried about a larger than normal la nina effect....

I supposed that perhaps the sunspots were worse than normal and we both shrugged and.... well we're still shrugging, only he is now snoozin' whilst he's doing it !

Jurien Bay is about 300ks North of Perth. The water in Perth is always fairly cold but 300ks ins't that far and I was surprised at how warm it was.

There may be a cyclone coming into Peerth tomorrow morning which is very rare: there were blue and yellow alerts while I was up in Jurien.

I got back to Perth two days ago.

Um, there may or may not be any significance to anything I've just written: where is that bottle?!!? Probably none left anyways....!

 :o :o ;D



Anyway, we had a few rhieslings and

As we have seen from our infrastructural damage caused by extremes, we are far from ready for the effects of Human Caused Climate Change.

We have known for decades, yet the Hard Right has sat on their hands, and even Labor had it in the too hard basket. No more mucking around.

We require a price on carbon and a climate change levy ASAP, so we can start shifting towards a sustainable economy. An economy that has a fair chance of adapting to whatever climate change throws at us.

____ wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 7:24am:

As we have seen from our infrastructural damage caused by extremes, we are far from ready for the effects of Human Caused Climate Change. We have known for decades, yet the Hard Right has sat on their hands, and even Labor had it in the too hard basket. No more mucking around. We require a price on carbon and a climate change levy ASAP, so we can start shifting towards a sustainable economy. An economy that has a fair chance of adapting to whatever climate change throws at us.

Wrong woody. What we need is for all P00FS to go back to their country of birth and leave us the bugger alone.

____ wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 7:24am:

As we have seen from our infrastructural damage caused by extremes, we are far from ready for the effects of Human Caused Climate Change. We have known for decades, yet the Hard Right has sat on their hands, and even Labor had it in the too hard basket. No more mucking around. We require a price on carbon and a climate change levy ASAP, so we can start shifting towards a sustainable economy. An economy that has a fair chance of adapting to whatever climate change throws at us.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm.
You missed a bit hanging their off your chin Green.
You might need a bib to catch your man made climate change dribble.
Make it a large one. ;D

State sweats on 40-degree scorcher


VICTORIA faces its first 40-degree days of the year today and tomorrow, with Victoria Ambulance warning thousands of spectators at the Australian Open and the Big Day Out music festival will be at risk of severe sunburn and dehydration.

Residents in the state's north are set to endure the rare combination of major flooding and a very high fire risk, with temperatures forecast to hit 41 degrees today and 40 tomorrow


http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/state-sweats-on-40degree-scorcher-20110129-1a937.html



and still the Hard Right are in denial over human caused climate change. Why, because the ill thought out plan of Abbott has trapped the party into a non negotiable position of total denial of all the science backing AGW.

The Hard Right are a minority, have no wish to be constructive, and are lost in the wilderness. So the government of the day can negotiate action on a carbon price and a levy with no input from the anti science Hard Right. This term we could see some real results.

____ wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 1:08pm:

State sweats on 40-degree scorcher VICTORIA faces its first 40-degree days of the year today and tomorrow, with Victoria Ambulance warning thousands of spectators at the Australian Open and the Big Day Out music festival will be at risk of severe sunburn and dehydration. Residents in the state's north are set to endure the rare combination of major flooding and a very high fire risk, with temperatures forecast to hit 41 degrees today and 40 tomorrow http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/state-sweats-on-40degree-scorcher-20110129-1a937.html and still the Hard Right are in denial over human caused climate change. Why, because the ill thought out plan of Abbott has trapped the party into a non negotiable position of total denial of all the science backing AGW. The Hard Right are a minority, have no wish to be constructive, and are lost in the wilderness. So the government of the day can negotiate action on a carbon price and a levy with no input from the anti science Hard Right. This term we could see some real results.

because a 40 degree day in australia has never happened before. adelaide is having one today as well - its first for the summer after the coolest january in decades.

Yeah, we're having a 40 degree day here too......Happens every summer, mostly over 40 by this point in summer..

We used to get 42+ days in Sydney, when I was a kid, back in the 70's....

We had one full week of no school ( over 100 Fahrenheit) in about 1974.......so hot the tar roads melted...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 2:14pm:

Yeah, we're having a 40 degree day here too......Happens every summer, mostly over 40 by this point in summer.. We used to get 42+ days in Sydney, when I was a kid, back in the 70's.... We had one full week of no school ( over 100 Fahrenheit) in about 1974.......so hot the tar roads melted...

Thats my complaint with the Climate Change Hysterics... Perspective and history. floods, droughts and heatwaves are all part of australian life.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 2:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 2:14pm: Yeah, we're having a 40 degree day here too......Happens every summer, mostly over 40 by this point in summer.. We used to get 42+ days in Sydney, when I was a kid, back in the 70's.... We had one full week of no school ( over 100 Fahrenheit) in about 1974.......so hot the tar roads melted... Thats my complaint with the Climate Change Hysterics... Perspective and history. floods, droughts and heatwaves are all part of australian life.

Yes, that's my complaint as well......Nothing happening NOW, hasn't happened before...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 2:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 2:14pm: Yeah, we're having a 40 degree day here too......Happens every summer, mostly over 40 by this point in summer.. We used to get 42+ days in Sydney, when I was a kid, back in the 70's.... We had one full week of no school ( over 100 Fahrenheit) in about 1974.......so hot the tar roads melted... Thats my complaint with the Climate Change Hysterics... Perspective and history. floods, droughts and heatwaves are all part of australian life. Yes, that's my complaint as well......Nothing happening NOW, hasn't happened before...

That is because deniers deny science. Science backs human caused climate change.

____ wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 2:27pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 2:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 2:14pm: Yeah, we're having a 40 degree day here too......Happens every summer, mostly over 40 by this point in summer.. We used to get 42+ days in Sydney, when I was a kid, back in the 70's.... We had one full week of no school ( over 100 Fahrenheit) in about 1974.......so hot the tar roads melted... Thats my complaint with the Climate Change Hysterics... Perspective and history. floods, droughts and heatwaves are all part of australian life. Yes, that's my complaint as well......Nothing happening NOW, hasn't happened before... That is because deniers deny science. Science backs human caused climate change.

No actually POLITICS backs 'human caused climate change'...not science..

Combet's answer: ''Coal is extremely important to our economy and it's one of the reasons why - in fact I had a number of discussions to this effect with my counterparts [at the latest UN climate talks] in Cancun - there is a great degree of interest in trying to develop things such as carbon capture and storage technology, which our government has got behind very firmly, because the future for fossil fuels ultimately will also be dependent on our capacity to utilise them on a much lower emissions pathway. So improving energy efficiency in coal-fired power stations, improving our capacity to explore CCS technology, will all be very important.''

The truth? It just isn't. A real climate policy would see the government stepping in where the states won't: denying export approval for new coalmines. In response to the floods, as the Climate Institute points out, we'd be axing fossil fuel subsidies which are part of the problem - like the diesel fuel rebate and fringe benefits tax for car use - instead of funding for solar power stations, which is part of the solution.

A real climate policy would see Australia target emissions reductions of at least 25 per cent by 2020 - our fair share of the effort needed to give us all a 2-in-3 chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees, as world leaders agreed at Copenhagen.

And that's being optimistic. Policy-makers are now thinking in earnest about a world that is 4 degrees warmer by 2070-2100 - as we're tracking if every country does everything they've promised so far - and the scenarios are apocalyptic. There is no science on how we might adapt.



http://www.smh.com.au/business/leaders-fiddle-while-the-world-burns-20110128-1a8bh.html


If Labor is serious about a climate change levy then Labor must take responsibility for the coal pollution.


Where does the Hard Right stand on coal pollution.

Quote:

A real climate policy would see Australia target emissions reductions of at least 25 per cent by 2020 - our fair share of the effort needed to give us all a 2-in-3 chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees, as world leaders agreed at Copenhagen

.

So we should reduce OUR emissions of 25% of 1.5%????

And 'reduce' our economy by 25% and our emissions by 0.375%???
That'll make a HUGE difference to the world emissions total....won't it??

My preference is 40%

I am not willing to accept failure and 25% invites potential failure.

If you are going to do something, do it properly.

____ wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 3:38pm:

My preference is 40% I am not willing to accept failure and 25% invites potential failure. If you are going to do something, do it properly.

So you think that less than 0.75% of the current emissions will help the planet???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

Quote: A real climate policy would see Australia target emissions reductions of at least 25 per cent by 2020 - our fair share of the effort needed to give us all a 2-in-3 chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees, as world leaders agreed at Copenhagen . So we should reduce OUR emissions of 25% of 1.5%???? And 'reduce' our economy by 25% and our emissions by 0.375%??? That'll make a HUGE difference to the world emissions total....won't it??

Whatever happened to the concepts of personal responsibility and mutual respect!?

Let us not continue to kid ourselves, that we (in the First World) personally don't consume on average between 20 and 40 times our fair share of the world's precious natural resources - nor that we're not thereby disproportionately responsible for facilitating the mass-destruction and exploitation that is being perpetrated around the globe by us and/or on our behalf...

Those of us in the world, who are in a relatively prosperous position, can and should begin to make the necessary socio-economic and environmental changes that we have the greatest skills and technological and economic capacity to do...

Those in this world, who are in a much poorer position (i.e. the vast majority of the human race), need to be supported, educated and trained and allowed to make the transition, to fairly share in some the obscene benefits of the superior technology and prosperity that the small minority of global citizens currently enjoy at the expense of the rest of the world's people and their/our global environment...

Yes, the world can follow Australia.

Like I said before, playing to win and that means leading.

Are the Hard Right and Labor scared of leading?

Equitist wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 3:52pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 3:20pm: Quote: A real climate policy would see Australia target emissions reductions of at least 25 per cent by 2020 - our fair share of the effort needed to give us all a 2-in-3 chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees, as world leaders agreed at Copenhagen . So we should reduce OUR emissions of 25% of 1.5%???? And 'reduce' our economy by 25% and our emissions by 0.375%??? That'll make a HUGE difference to the world emissions total....won't it?? Whatever happened to the concepts of personal responsibility and mutual respect!? Let us not continue to kid ourselves, that we (in the First World) personally don't consume on average between 20 and 40 times our fair share of the world's precious natural resources - nor that we don't thereby contribute disproportionately to the mass-destruction and exploitation that is being perpetrated around the globe by us and/or on our behalf... Those of us in the world, who are in a relatively prosperous position, can and should begin to make the necessary socio-economic and environmental changes that we have the greatest skills and technological and economic capacity to do... Those in this world, who are in a much poorer position (i.e. the vast majority of the human race), need to be supported, educated and trained and allowed to make the transition, to fairly share in some the obscene benefits of the superior technology and prosperity that the small minority of global citizens currently enjoy at the expense of the rest of the world's people and their environment...

"Let us not continue to kid ourselves, that we (in the First World) personally don't consume on average between 20 and 40 times our fair share of the world's precious natural resources "

Do we actually consume (and produce) 20 to 40 times 'our fair share'???  IF so, why do we only produce 1.5% of the total 'emissions' in the world???
Would you care to explain HOW we can 'consume' almost HALF of the 'polluting' materials....but still only produce 1.5% of the 'polluting' emissions????...Where does the 'other' 1,998.5% of the emissions go???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 3:43pm:

____ wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 3:38pm: My preference is 40% I am not willing to accept failure and 25% invites potential failure. If you are going to do something, do it properly. So you think that less than 0.75% of the current emissions will help the planet???

Yes.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 4:02pm:

Equitist wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 3:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 3:20pm: Quote: A real climate policy would see Australia target emissions reductions of at least 25 per cent by 2020 - our fair share of the effort needed to give us all a 2-in-3 chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees, as world leaders agreed at Copenhagen . So we should reduce OUR emissions of 25% of 1.5%???? And 'reduce' our economy by 25% and our emissions by 0.375%??? That'll make a HUGE difference to the world emissions total....won't it?? Whatever happened to the concepts of personal responsibility and mutual respect!? Let us not continue to kid ourselves, that we (in the First World) personally don't consume on average between 20 and 40 times our fair share of the world's precious natural resources - nor that we don't thereby contribute disproportionately to the mass-destruction and exploitation that is being perpetrated around the globe by us and/or on our behalf... Those of us in the world, who are in a relatively prosperous position, can and should begin to make the necessary socio-economic and environmental changes that we have the greatest skills and technological and economic capacity to do... Those in this world, who are in a much poorer position (i.e. the vast majority of the human race), need to be supported, educated and trained and allowed to make the transition, to fairly share in some the obscene benefits of the superior technology and prosperity that the small minority of global citizens currently enjoy at the expense of the rest of the world's people and their environment... "Let us not continue to kid ourselves, that we (in the First World) personally don't consume on average between 20 and 40 times our fair share of the world's precious natural resources " Do we actually consume (and produce) 20 to 40 times 'our fair share'???  IF so, why do we only produce 1.5% of the total 'emissions' in the world??? Would you care to explain HOW we can 'consume' almost HALF of the 'polluting' materials....but still only produce 1.5% of the 'polluting' emissions????...Where does the 'other' 1,998.5% of the emissions go???

Do you need anyone to spell the broader impacts of exponential specialisation, globalisation and polarisation out for you!?

If so, then you obviously wouldn't appreciate the answer...

Either way, I'm prepared to give you one more hint: global ecological/environmental footprint.

Equitist wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 4:02pm: Equitist wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 3:52pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30th, 2011 at 3:20pm: Quote: A real climate policy would see Australia target emissions reductions of at least 25 per cent by 2020 - our fair share of the effort needed to give us all a 2-in-3 chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees, as world leaders agreed at Copenhagen . So we should reduce OUR emissions of 25% of 1.5%???? And 'reduce' our economy by 25% and our emissions by 0.375%??? That'll make a HUGE difference to the world emissions total....won't it?? Whatever happened to the concepts of personal responsibility and mutual respect!? Let us not continue to kid ourselves, that we (in the First World) personally don't consume on average between 20 and 40 times our fair share of the world's precious natural resources - nor that we don't thereby contribute disproportionately to the mass-destruction and exploitation that is being perpetrated around the globe by us and/or on our behalf... Those of us in the world, who are in a relatively prosperous position, can and should begin to make the necessary socio-economic and environmental changes that we have the greatest skills and technological and economic capacity to do... Those in this world, who are in a much poorer position (i.e. the vast majority of the human race), need to be supported, educated and trained and allowed to make the transition, to fairly share in some the obscene benefits of the superior technology and prosperity that the small minority of global citizens currently enjoy at the expense of the rest of the world's people and their environment... "Let us not continue to kid ourselves, that we (in the First World) personally don't consume on average between 20 and 40 times our fair share of the world's precious natural resources " Do we actually consume (and produce) 20 to 40 times 'our fair share'???  IF so, why do we only produce 1.5% of the total 'emissions' in the world??? Would you care to explain HOW we can 'consume' almost HALF of the 'polluting' materials....but still only produce 1.5% of the 'polluting' emissions????...Where does the 'other' 1,998.5% of the emissions go??? Do you need anyone to spell the broader impacts of exponential specialisation, globalisation and polarisation out for you!? If so, then you obviously wouldn't appreciate the answer... Either way, I'm prepared to give you one more hint: global ecological/environmental footprint.

OHHHH all those 'magic words'....Which STILL don't beat the idea that Australia's TOTAL contribution to the WORLD WIDE 'Co2' levels is still less than 1.2%.....No matter what idiotic statements you care to make about  "per capita' or anything else....our contribution is STILL only 1.2% of the total.....so 1/4 of 1.2% is STILL stuff all...Even 40% of 1.2% is less than half of SFA....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

OHHHH all those 'magic words'....Which STILL don't beat the idea that Australia's TOTAL contribution to the WORLD WIDE 'Co2' levels is still less than 1.2%.....No matter what idiotic statements you care to make about  "per capita' or anything else....our contribution is STILL only 1.2% of the total.....so 1/4 of 1.2% is STILL stuff all...Even 40% of 1.2% is less than half of SFA....

LOL...sorry Giz, but that mindset reminds me of what goes on in pre-school and primary school yards on a daily basis, e.g.: -

"It wasn't me, Miss - it was them!

"Na, na, nah nahnaahnnaah - don't have to if they won't!"

"I'm having the biggest piece!"

"No, it's ALL MINE!"

"You're not the boss of me - can if I want to!"