You could be forgiven for missing it, but on the Friday afternoon before Christmas, federal environment minister Greg Hunt released the draft details of the Emissions Reduction Fund – the centrepiece of the government’s Direct Action climate policy.

The Direct Action plan is crucial if Australia is to meet its modest emissions goal of a 5% reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. But this first draft is beset by loopholes that could mean the plan delivers less bang for its 1.5 billion bucks over the next four years.

There are three standout problems. First, there is a risk that money will be given to carbon-reduction projects that would have gone ahead anyway, thus taking funding away from other projects. Second, the way emissions reductions are calculated could potentially penalise those who have already made cuts, while the most intense polluters might be spared from having to bring themselves into line with industry best practice. And third, companies that fail to meet their emissions pledges could be given long deadlines to put it right, with only minor financial penalties.


More Here :

http://theconversation.com/three-major-loopholes-in-the-direct-action-climate-plan-21838

Quote:

Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action'

Almost everything.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 7:11am:

Quote: Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action' Almost everything.

thats pretty much how I had it figured too!

Whats Wrong With 'Direct Action'


You could focus on a couple of small points like very expensive and won't work for a start just to keep it simple.

If the Libs continue to treat the atmosphere like an open sewer it will come back to bite them at the next election.
Three more years of record disasters and soaring temperatures will show them up for the short term political opportunists that they are.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:04am:

If the Libs continue to treat the atmosphere like an open sewer it will come back to bite them at the next election. Three more years of record disasters and soaring temperatures will show them up for the short term political opportunists that they are.

;D ;D ;D ;D  Yep nearly as hot as the heat wave in 1908  and fires nearly as bad as 1939    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

woody2014 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:08am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:04am: If the Libs continue to treat the atmosphere like an open sewer it will come back to bite them at the next election. Three more years of record disasters and soaring temperatures will show them up for the short term political opportunists that they are. ;D ;D ;D ;D  Yep nearly as hot as the heat wave in 1908  and fires nearly as bad as 1939    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You do realise that this has been going on for over 100 yrs so its no surprise that those records occurred within the warming period we were warned about since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
None of this is new...

As all of the worlds respected political and industrial leaders say...its not a question of whether climate change is real anymore...its what we can do about it that is the question.
Abbotts self serving opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:11am:

woody2014 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:08am: adelcrow wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:04am: If the Libs continue to treat the atmosphere like an open sewer it will come back to bite them at the next election. Three more years of record disasters and soaring temperatures will show them up for the short term political opportunists that they are. ;D ;D ;D ;D  Yep nearly as hot as the heat wave in 1908  and fires nearly as bad as 1939    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You do realise that this has been going on for over 100 yrs so its no surprise that those records occurred within the warming period we were warned about since the beginning of the industrial revolution. None of this is new...

Do you have a link to the warnings back to the beginning OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION   ;D ;D ;D ;D

adelcrow wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:16am:

As all of the worlds respected political and industrial leaders say...its not a question of whether climate change is real anymore...its what we can do about it that is the question. Abbotts self serving opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

;)  So is yours   >:(

woody2014 wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:17am:

Do you have a link to the warnings back to the beginning OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13]
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16]

Not quite the start of the industrial revolution, but definitely during.

Stratos wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 9:25am:

woody2014 wrote on Jan 18th, 2014 at 9:17am: Do you have a link to the warnings back to the beginning OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION  The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[12][13] In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.[16] Not quite the start of the industrial revolution, but definitely during.

Now that's interesting. Thank's for that   ;)

The worlds moved on and its time the right wing denialists and their political masters did the same

what's wrong with planting a Tree?

I don't understand this..

I thought greens were FOR more Trees?

in the past they've chained themselves to trees so that they wont be cut down...

but now.. the mere mention of the thought of planting more trees sends them into a mad spin about how bad it is to plant trees to better out world...

are they insane???

True Blue... wrote on Jan 18^th, 2014 at 11:42pm:

what's wrong with planting a Tree? I don't understand this.. I thought greens were FOR more Trees? in the past they've chained themselves to trees so that they wont be cut down... but now.. the mere mention of the thought of planting more trees sends them into a mad spin about how bad it is to plant trees to better out world... are they insane???

Nothing wrong with planting some trees. Problem is that we would need to plant enough trees to impact food production to get any benefit. Then there it the question of what trees how mature and where do you get more than 10 Million trees just to start ? Seedlings are cheap but won't impact for decades more mature trees are expensive to buy and costly in every stage? Still take a decade to produce results.

How much do these trees cost how much does it cost to plant them where do we plant them how many die who maintains them how will this impact wildlife and the environment.

Yep go and plant a tree and the problem is solved.

And then that 10 Million trees is a very modest beginning many times that number would be required.

Whats wrong with forcing the people and industries that would use our atmosphere as an open sewer to pay for their actions?
Its simple...polluters should always pay...no matter what that pollution is.

Direct action is an expansion of corporate welfare. It has to be funded somehow. Who pays for it? We all do. It is just as much a tax on carbon as Labor's scheme except the mechanism by which we all pay is far less transparent.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 8:42am:

Whats wrong with forcing the people and industries that would use our atmosphere as an open sewer to pay for their actions? Its simple...polluters should always pay...no matter what that pollution is.

It was all explained by Tony when he was running around like chicken little - Whyalla will crumble and fall and the sky will come crashing down if we charge the polluters.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 19^th, 2014 at 8:42am:

Whats wrong with forcing the people and industries that would use our atmosphere as an open sewer to pay for their actions? Its simple...polluters should always pay...no matter what that pollution is.

Indeed. Tax pollution and the polluters will reduce it. England taxed windows. People blocked them up. Amsterdam tax houses by the width of their street frontage. People built houses long and narrow. If pollution is taxed it will be reduced.

Taxing carbon emissions is sensible, although I favour a floating-price ETS. A properly-implemented ETS will automatically (by market) reduce in price when the economy is weak and increase in price when we can afford it. Interest rates would be more stable. No more kicking the mortgage holders and businesses with overdrafts whenever the economy needs to be reined in; an ETS would moderate the economy automatically and be more broadly based.

60% of the proposed reductions in the Coalitions Direct Action policy will come from soil carbons.....

1. Soil carbons are NOT counted in the protocol.

2. The amount of reductions the Coalition claim they will achieve has been questioned by the CSIRO and other scientists.

3. Soil carbon has not been proven to work.

4. The price the Coalition have proposed for soil carbon has been rejected by farmers as inadequate.

::) ::) ::)


Quote:

The conclusions of the CSIRO report are worth reporting at length: When [soil carbon] stocks were followed through time, the majority of studies indicated that there was an actual decrease in the quantity of carbon stored in the soil. These seemingly contradictory results suggest that much of Australia's agricultural soils may still be responding to initial land clearing and that many management improvements are just slowing the rate of loss [soil carbon]... it may be extremely difficult to project these findings out into the future where the soil carbon condition is unknown. In other words: the CSIRO's soil carbon trials actually showed a decrease in the amount of carbon stored in the soil! Not only this, but the report says it is "extremely difficult" to predict whether soil carbon farming practices will work in the future

.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

Google soil carbons and find out about this con for yourself!!!

>:( >:( >:(

The denialists are not even worth acknowledging these days as they are so much in the minority that no one takes them seriously anymore.
The question is...why direct inaction over the most effective form of discouraging polluting and encouraging clean, green sustainable alternatives...which is a simple tax on the polluters.