Australian Politics Forum - Emissions Bill

skippy

Ex Member

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #30 - Jul 30^th, 2009 at 1:17pm

Back on topic-

Quote:

Climate change and jobs top priorities: RuddPhillip Coorey
July 30, 2009 - 11:08AM
Kevin Rudd has launched Labor’s national conference with a pledge to create 50,000 green jobs or training opportunities, at a cost of $100 million.

In a speech that focused heavily on employment and nation building, the Prime Minister said 30,000 apprenticeships would have an environmental component made part of their training from January 1.

He took a swipe at climate change scpetics and others who claim an emissions trading scheme would be a job destroyer.

‘‘The climate change sceptics constantly scaremonger about the possible loss of jobs through the transition to a lower carbon economy," he said.

‘‘But they constantly fail to talk about the new clean energy jobs of the future, which will arise from the introduction of the carbon pollution reduction scheme, the renewable energy target and energy efficiency measures in the future.’’

The plan also includes a 10,000-member national Green Jobs Corps, whereby long-term young jobless will take part in six months of training and work experience.

There will be an additional 4000 training places for insulation installers and 6000 jobs from environmental sustainability programs in priority local economies.

Mr Rudd told delegates his Government planned to continue the Labor tradition of nation-building.

‘‘This is the tradition of which we are so proud. And this is the tradition which now shapes the future we would craft for Australia,’’ he said.

The Prime Minister received a standing ovation when he entered the Darling Harbour convention centre but there was no music or other fanfare. The conference is being kept deliberately low-key in deference to the economic downturn.

Rudd is right about the jobs, although jobs will be lost to the old industries many new jobs will be created with Green industries.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 42330 Gender:	Re: Emissions Bill Reply #31 - Jul 30^th, 2009 at 1:30pm skippy - to a large degree, these are govt. invented jobs. eg, the insulation installers jobs are due to the govt giving away free insulation to everyone. the govt is using our taxes to create false jobs. there are no exports created
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

skippy

Ex Member

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #32 - Jul 30^th, 2009 at 1:56pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 30^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:

skippy - to a large degree, these are govt. invented jobs.

eg, the insulation installers jobs are due to the govt giving away free insulation to everyone.
the govt is using our taxes to create false jobs.

there are no exports created

Insulation is a great idea sprint, every building should have it.
The gov are just giving that industry a push because in the long term its a quick cheap way of reducing household energy use.

As for exports, if the gov get in there and really embrace a clean GREEN power market we could become world leaders in GREEN technology.

Back to top

IP Logged

mantra

Gold Member

Offline

ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #33 - Jul 30^th, 2009 at 2:43pm

Quote:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 30^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:

skippy - to a large degree, these are govt. invented jobs.

eg, the insulation installers jobs are due to the govt giving away free insulation to everyone.
the govt is using our taxes to create false jobs.

there are no exports created

Insulation is a great idea sprint, every building should have it.
The gov are just giving that industry a push because in the long term its a quick cheap way of reducing household energy use.

As for exports, if the gov get in there and really embrace a clean GREEN power market we could become world leaders in GREEN technology.

Skippy - Sprintcyclist is right. Do you know there are hundreds of containers containing pink batts down at the docks right now - all from China. We can't fill the demand here. I knew this was going to happen. We are a receptacle for China's junk - insulation is being dumped here and the Government is propping up imports - not building our economy with exports. I wouldn't trust China's insulation batts. Too much of what they export to us is toxic, but Rudd is helping their economy - not ours.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 30^th, 2009 at 2:52pm by mantra »

IP Logged

skippy

Ex Member

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #34 - Jul 30^th, 2009 at 3:15pm

No ,I didn't know there were hundreds of containers on the docks full of batts, who ordered them? I would have thought companies would place orders for stock when they needed it. As for China making the batts, they make everything nowadays, thats been a fact of life for a while now.
As for exports, we stopped doing a lot of stuff here a long time ago, for the most part our exports now are what we dig up.
Australia can't compete with countries like China for manufacturing basic goods, those days are long gone.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 42330 Gender:	Re: Emissions Bill Reply #35 - Jul 30^th, 2009 at 4:03pm skippy - yes insulation is a great idea. I have insulated a few houses myself, the difference is very good indeed. In the process of getting my house insulated now, for free. because i have already paid for it from my taxes. I have no idea where the current insuation come from. Given its mass, I'ld imagine locally
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #36 - Aug 1^st, 2009 at 6:02pm

Climate Depot Editorial: We would all be doomed if we actually faced climate 'crisis' - Cap-and-trade equals all economic pain for no climate gain

Science continues to turn against man-made warming fear promoters

Wednesday, May 06, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
The new analysis of Congressional cap-and-trade bill showing the temperature impact to be 'scientifically meaningless' is consistent with many previous studies showing that proposed "solutions" to man-made global warming are nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. (See: Analysis: Climate Bill is 'Scientifically Meaningless' – Temp Reduction By 2050 of Only 9/100 of one Degree F )

If we did face a man-made climate catastrophe and the United Nations proposals and Congressional cap-and-trade were our only hope -- we would all be doomed!

Many attempt to tout Congressional or UN carbon trading bills as an "insurance" policy against global warming in case the skeptics are wrong about the science. But a simple question to ask is: Would you purchase fire insurance on your home that had a huge up front premium for virtually no payout if you home burned down? If you answered YES to such an “insurance” policy, then Congress has a deal for you with their cap-and-trade legislation.

This new temperature analysis of Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill, comes at a time when key House Democrats are now realizing the cost (and futility) of attempting to control the Earth's thermostat. In addition, even the two strongest proponents of man-made global warming fears – NASA's James Hansen and UK's James Lovelock -- are now ridiculing the Congressional cap-and-trade approach as “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.” Remember, these are the words of scientists who believe in a looming human caused climate “crisis.”

Current polling data reveals that the American people “get it” when it comes to man-made global warming fears. Given the wealth of recent polling data showing Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, it is hard to believe any Congressmen or Senators are hearing any clamour from voters to "act" to "solve" global warming. In fact, the opposite is true, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called "solutions" in growing numbers. (See: Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues & Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has 'Failed' -- 'The public is just not that concerned' about global warming & Zobgy Poll: Only 30% of Americans support cap-and-trade -- 57% oppose & "Gallup Poll: Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated" - March 11, 2009
& Rasmussen Poll found Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming - 'Lowest finding yet' -- 'reversal from a year ago!' )

'Most significant revenue generating proposal of our time'

Despite the American people's rejection of warming fears and climate taxes, Congress may persist in pushing them for other non-scientific reasons. Hint, hint. See: Dem. Senator calls cap-and-trade 'the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time'

Americans are becoming aware that the debate is not "over" as more than 700 prominent international scientists publicly dissenting, including many who are reversing their views on climate fears and declaring themselves skeptical. Americans are becoming aware that there has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years.

Skeptical scientists generally rally around several key points.
1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability.
2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions.
3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and,
4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

In addition, there has been “no evidence for accelerated sea-level” according to the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. and failure of the oceans to warm, and Antarctic ice continues to grow. Even the poster child of the warming fear campaign, the Arctic is not cooperating . (See: April 'Arctic sea ice extent within expected range of natural variability' -- ice grew by 'more than the size of Texas over last two years' & UK Met Office: Arctic Ice Changes 'Could Easily be Due to Natural Fluctuations in the Weather' & 'These are good times to be a climate skeptic' - 'Global sea ice extent presently above long-term average' )

Back to top

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #37 - Aug 1^st, 2009 at 7:14pm

Enough is enough with these idiotic right wing denialist think tank editorials grendel.
This board is supposed to be on environmentalism, and your nutty obsession belongs more rightfully in Fringe, in fact it would be a good place for it, with Tallo moderating.
Sort of a good example of the lunatic looking after the asylum.

So as denialism has really nothing to do with environmentalism, and is just a tool used to confuse decent people who are actually after honest answers, I intend to make a new thread here for your denialist propaganda, into which all your cut and paste idiocy can be contained.

When Muso comes back you can see if he wants to change that, but while he is away, we do not have anyone who can reliably keep up with pointing out the loony lies of the denialists, with scientific answers, and I do not want to waste my time addressing loony conspirinut garbage all the time.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #38 - Aug 1^st, 2009 at 8:06pm

It's no more idiotic and denialist than the stuff you post... only I'm usually too courteous to ridicule and name-call baselessly or religiously like you lot.

So how about you point out the lies eh?

Oh not able to huh?

That's right because the information on the American legislation etc is actually pretty right.

After all this is about Emissions Bills...

Back to top

IP Logged

mantra

Gold Member

Offline

ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #39 - Aug 10^th, 2009 at 1:55pm

Turnbull has come up with a revised ETS to extend the number of free permits and boost compensation to the coal industry.

The Greens aren't supporting either scheme, nor are the Nationals who have threatened to break away from the Libs if they go ahead and allow this scheme to be passed.

Turnbull will give in only if a double dissolution is threatened - so if Rudd gives into the Libs first - it will just confirm what we already know and that this bill is all about giving into the demands of the multinationals. It will also prove that the major parties are working in cahoots with each other.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #40 - Aug 16^th, 2009 at 10:53am

Well if we believe Kevin he's not going to call an election on this.
Ok...
That leaves us with Kevin and Malcolm coming to some cobbled together compromise.
Neither the Nats or the Greens will accept this either.

BTW, both the ALP/LIB solutions Cheesy

do not solve the problem. It taxes us and harms our lifestyle we'll all be looking to find ways to pay the increased bills and more expensive food and petrol etc.

What will happen to people finding it hard now who knows?

There are only a few solutions, real solutions to this.
1/ Plant more trees. Trees as with all plant life use "natural" CO2 like we do Oxygen... they need it to live. They take carbon out of the atmosphere. Hence CO2 levels would diminish naturally. We need better urban planning and more GREEN SPACES. We need corridors of GREEN linking communities and spreading out throughout the state etc. This requires a big rethink, but not one that is onerous to the average person.
2/ We need Government and Business to get on board the renewable resources and alternative energy technology bandwagon. There are technologies available and some just around the corner which just need a little time and more investment.

These are real solutions. Not some politically motivated rubbish that doesn't solve the "problem". I can think of lots of reasons to lower CO2 emissions and none are based on the farcical unproven alarmist CO2 scare-campaign.

Back to top

IP Logged

mantra

Gold Member

Offline

ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #41 - Aug 17^th, 2009 at 8:36am

Grendel wrote on Aug 16^th, 2009 at 10:53am:

Well if we believe Kevin he's not going to call an election on this.
Ok...
That leaves us with Kevin and Malcolm coming to some cobbled together compromise.
Neither the Nats or the Greens will accept this either.

BTW, both the ALP/LIB solutions Cheesy

do not solve the problem. It taxes us and harms our lifestyle we'll all be looking to find ways to pay the increased bills and more expensive food and petrol etc.

What will happen to people finding it hard now who knows?

There are only a few solutions, real solutions to this.
1/ Plant more trees. Trees as with all plant life use "natural" CO2 like we do Oxygen... they need it to live. They take carbon out of the atmosphere. Hence CO2 levels would diminish naturally. We need better urban planning and more GREEN SPACES. We need corridors of GREEN linking communities and spreading out throughout the state etc. This requires a big rethink, but not one that is onerous to the average person.
2/ We need Government and Business to get on board the renewable resources and alternative energy technology bandwagon. There are technologies available and some just around the corner which just need a little time and more investment.

These are real solutions. Not some politically motivated rubbish that doesn't solve the "problem". I can think of lots of reasons to lower CO2 emissions and none are based on the farcical unproven alarmist CO2 scare-campaign.

Those points you raised were spot on Grendel. I don't know why people can't see the logic behind this. Just an example - the NSW state government is cutting down all the trees at Homebush Bay to build a car racing facility - yet at the same time has added "green" taxes to our water and electricity.

More and more bushland is eradicated to make room for mining and development and more people. Obviously CO2 levels will increase with this destruction - so we have to pay more for the concrete jungle we're forced to live in.

Maybe our governments should start talking about population control as well. That would make more sense.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 42330
Gender: male

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #42 - Jul 8^th, 2010 at 10:42am

Quote:

THE great myth pushed by those that want to close our cheap and reliable coal-fired power stations - the ones that give us power even when the wind isn't blowing - is that it would be all-but costless........

.......In March, another one of the myriad entities feeding off the anti-carbon money teat, ClimateWorks, purported to show we could cut emissions by 25 per cent by 2020; and it would cost us just $1.8 billion a year or a mere 0.1 per cent of 2020 GDP.

Nowhere did ClimateWorks ask or far less answer the question of why. What would spending even the modest sum of $1.8 million achieve?

As Australia cutting its emissions even by 25 per cent would make four-fifths of five-eighths of very little difference to any global or even local climate outcome.

If the planet was going to fry without our cuts, it would still fry with them. And ditto for the Barrier Reef...........

...........ClimateWorks simply ignores the economic impact of the dramatic increase in electricity and gas prices, according to ITS.

"Treasury modelling" - yes, I know - indicated, according to ITS, that an emissions cut of just 5 per cent would increase electricity prices by 86 per cent; and ClimateWorks was talking about cuts of five times that. Costlessly.

But if you simply ignore the cost, as ClimateWorks did, it presumably 'won't happen'.

We get 90 per cent of our electricity from coal-fired power because it, well, works. Wind and solar don't and never will - other than to waste our money and enrich alternative energy main-chancers.

Spain which has gone further and deeper into 'alternative energy' than any other country, is learning this brutal reality; it could become the first country to go back to a realistic energy future.

Former Telstra chief and born-again rocket scientist Ziggy Switkowski wants us to go nuclear. That's the least worst option to the sensible one - sticking with coal.

Nuclear is the only 'alternative' option that would give us reliable power. But what's the point? Spending $200 billion or more to build nuclear power stations simply to close down perfectly good coal ones?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/for-a-few-bucks-save-...

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: Emissions Bill
Reply #43 - Jul 8^th, 2010 at 4:43pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 10:42am:

As Australia cutting its emissions even by 25 per cent would make four-fifths of five-eighths of very little difference to any global or even local climate outcome.

If the planet was going to fry without our cuts, it would still fry with them. And ditto for the Barrier Reef...........

I just live this logic. It's like saying "Even if Frank Lowy paid tax 100% tax on on 100% of his income, it would only increase Commonwealth revenue by 0.01%. Therefore, why bother taxing him? Let everyone else pay tax."

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 10:42am:

...........ClimateWorks simply ignores the economic impact of the dramatic increase in electricity and gas prices, according to ITS.

That's probably true, but Terry McCrann simply ignores the cost of continuing to burn coal at the rate of 1 tonne per megawatthour: we'll all die.

And here's a newsflash for you Terry: as long as the sun is shining, the wind is blowing somewhere. Yes, we do have more than one turbine, you twat.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 9^th, 2010 at 6:11pm by Paella »

IP Logged