Poor ranking heats climate debate

Australia is the worst-performing nation when it comes to climate action.

According to a survey by European non-government organisations, Australia is now the worst-performing developed nation when it comes to climate-change action. We have been ranked 57th out of 58 nations reviewed by the survey.

The government's scrapping of the carbon price may be partly to blame for the low ranking. However, Guy Ragen, a climate change campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), said Australia's conservative emissions reduction goals and high rate of pollution per capita made the country a poor performer prior to the carbon price being scrapped in July – a move which caused Australia's policy rating to slump 21 places in this latest survey.

"While the developed world is going in one direction, Australia is going in the opposite," said Mr Ragen.

And with the government also attempting to cut the Renewable Energy Target, "You'll have to assume [the policy rating] will get worse," Mr Ragen said.

The report's release coincides with climate change talks taking place in Peru this week. Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Trade Minister Andrew Robb will represent Australia at the talks.

Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom are the top three nations ranked in the survey. Australia and Saudi Arabia share the bottom four positions with Canada and Kazakhstan.

Read more at The Age.

Opinion: Time for Tony to get on board

The issue of climate change has been covered extensively in the media this year, which should go to show how important this subject is to Australians, but Tony Abbott still seems intent on avoiding the issue.

A recent Fairfax Ipsos poll found that six out of 10 Australians feel that the Direct Action policy is an inadequate response to the issue of global warming. This raises questions over the abolition of the carbon tax, a move which Mr Abbott has been trumpeting as a signature achievement of his government.

World leaders have criticised the Australian Government for dumping what were considered promising moves in controlling carbon emissions. The government is also under fire for not contributing to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which assists poor countries to introduce their own strategies to combat global warming.

Even members of Abbott’s own party seem to be at odds with his lack of enthusiasm for an effective policy on climate action. The prime minister's office initially blocked Bishop's proposal to travel to the global climate talks in Peru, so she took the matter to the full cabinet to get the decision reversed. She is now attending the talks on the proviso that she be joined by climate-change sceptic, Andrew Robb.

The Prime Minister’s unwillingness to discuss these issues is considered one of the major factors for his massive drop in popularity, which is now at an all-time low. And with Australia now ranked as the worst-performing developed country in the world when it comes to climate action, we can’t get much lower.

The four lowest ranking nations – Australia, Saudi Arabia, Canada and Kazakhstan – are all major fossil fuel producing countries – three of the four are in the top 20 coal producing nations in the world. It’s not difficult to see why we face considerable issues when it comes to changing our ways. How do we switch to renewable energy when coal mining is one of our major exports, and provider of jobs? This is the hurdle our government faces when considering climate change strategies. These issues could almost make us a case for special consideration. It’s one thing for the world to be angry about our perceived lack of effort in tackling climate change, it’s another to actually step in and advise us on potential courses of action. However, this advice would inevitably fall on deaf ears.

What do you think? Should we put forward a case that we are in need of special consideration when it comes to tackling climate change? Will Mr Abbott’s attitude towards climate change affect your intentions when it comes to voting?





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Chookman
    9th Dec 2014
    10:14am
    So now the chickens come home to roost - remember all those grey nomads at the behest of Alan Jones and the coalition demonstrating in Canberra with signs such as Bob Brown's Bitch et al trying to get rid of the Carbon Tax - and then they voted for the "honest: Tony Abbott who promptly got rid of the tax without an ETS and put Australia back into the dark ages of dealing with climate change. Australian's are the highest per capita emitter of green house gases in the western world and rank only behind the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait in terms of emissions per capita. With so many other options at our fingertips we should be a world leader in solar and renewable energy production but that won't happen whilst there are no dterrents in place to change how we produce and use energy.
    Paulodapotter
    10th Dec 2014
    1:00am
    Agreed, but the flat earthers will fiddle while Rome burns. It's an anthropological thing. Australians, with the exception of its indigenous forbears, are a convict culture. We'll bleat like sheep that it's some one else's fault and will take no responsibility for our own stupidity.
    nightie
    10th Dec 2014
    10:10am
    I agree chookman we should be using solar more, alas my neighbours have 6 metre trees that has stopped me from putting solar panels on my roof as I would not get enough sun,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,freakin treehuggers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to think that Denmark is such a small nation yet a leader in so many fields. Perhaps Tony should do a trip there and see what Denmark is doing right and implement some policies to make a change for the better.
    Anonymous
    10th Dec 2014
    10:29pm
    well said Chookman…. before Abbott I believe that Australia was one of the world leaders in both dealing with climate change and renewable energy.

    This is an interesting ABC iView LINK… Doctor Steven Chu, Nobel Laureate and Former US Secretary of Energy - (simply copy and paste to your browser)

    http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/national-press-club-address/NC1406C046S00

    Enjoy.
    Adrianus
    11th Dec 2014
    7:59am
    Mussitate, the Germanwatch CCPI ratings don't support your theory. If you look at my post below you will notice that our ranking was as good as it ever would get with our small population under the Howard Government. Rudds 'pink batts', solar panels and windmills it appears took our CCPI rating in the opposite direction. Australia was never a world leader in this area and never will be because we have a small population. This will keep us at the tail of the field.
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    10:17am
    57th out of 58? Well the good news is, we can't get much lower. Australia and its kissing cousin Canada. Shame!

    Amazing how our great environmental reputation has been trashed in just over a year.

    Ditto our human rights reputation.

    Ditto our social security reputation.

    Education... et al. Not much left to be proud of, or feel secure about, is there?
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    11:32am
    Oh Jen, there is too much money tied up in non-renewables. They are too powerfull. Besides, too many 'Mums and Dads' have shares in non-renewables. It is all a case of the almighty $$. It breaks my heart to see such a privileged and great country as Aus. being at the lower end of the scale .... the s*** end of the world scale on decency and compassion. Are we really more interested in material things than the welfare of those coming after us??

    Unfortunately I have to say you are just so right. It appears the majority of Aussies can only think 'Me Me Me"
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    12:21pm
    student there is also too much money tied up in renewables.
    I recall Al Gore saying to Clive Palmer. Claarve I don't care what you do or say as long as that $10b heads my way.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    3:12pm
    57 out of 58? Jen, why not look on the bright side? If Bill Shorten did the report we would have been at 58.
    Paulodapotter
    10th Dec 2014
    1:03am
    It's refreshing to hear there are still some with sense who have a vision for the future, you excepted Frank,
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    10:33am
    Why is our environmental reputation so important?
    Have a look at UN poll here: http://data.myworld2015.org/ . There is nice bar-chart there, too, if you just scroll the page little down.
    Kato
    10th Dec 2014
    11:28am
    Why did THEY give the UN climate change $200 million .
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    1:03pm
    German Watch produce their report in December for the proceding 12 months. That is to say they publicise the 2014 report in December 2013.
    This non government group of greenies was formed in 2005 and Australia's ranking each year can be seen below.

    2006......50
    2007......47
    2008......unable to find CCPI report due to focus on Global Warming.

    2009......55
    2010......57
    2011......58
    2012......48
    2013......40
    2014......57
    2015......60

    As you can see, during the period when Mr Regan worked with Mr Combet to close down certain industries Australia's ranking improved slightly. Particularly as Gillard was doing a back room deal with Combet to become Prime Minister. The Greenies in Germany, Bals and his mates, would have been excited.
    ghoti
    9th Dec 2014
    10:31am
    As a wealthy nation with the world's highest rate of greenhouse gas emission per capita, we should we NOT make a plea for special consideration. We should be doing everything we can to help those countries that are now suffering from anthropogenic climate change, including reducing our own emissions by far more than the measly 5%-by-2020 target and strengthening, not cutting, the RET.

    Mr Abbott lost any chance of getting my vote years ago. But if he came up with a believable plan to make a real difference to climate change, I could be tempted.
    Paulodapotter
    10th Dec 2014
    1:04am
    Wouldn't we all!!!
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    9:55am
    The Curing of Liars.. By Mandrake the Magician ...
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    10:52am
    Ghoti, would you please elaborate on "those countries that are now suffering from anthropogenic climate change"? What are they, and how are they suffering?

    To the best of my knowledge, the so called "Anthropogenic Climate Change" is still in the realm of hypothesis pretending to be a theory, but none of it's predictions has been confirmed by observations so far, and not enough evidence has been collected to prove the theory right. The theory itself is changing frequently, before it was hot air, now it is warming ovceans, before it was Antarctic melting, now it is freezing.

    I for one do not believe that 3 molecules of CO2 in every 10,000 molecules of air are perfectly safe, but 4 or 4.2 molecules of CO2 in every 10,000 molecules of air will kill us all - because that's what the Global Warming is all about, really - but remember that many farmers maintain their green houses at artificially elevated levels of CO2, so that more and healthier crops are produced.

    CO2 is not such a devil as some people would like us believe. In my dictionary, it's better to be warm than cold :-)
    Anonymous
    10th Dec 2014
    10:34pm
    BobK
    It doesn't really matter if you believe in climate change… you HAVE TO BELIEVE that our planet both land and oceans are becoming more and more polluted and toxic. That is enough to know that ANY action to reverse or clean up our act has to be good for mankind…. end of story!
    wally
    10th Dec 2014
    11:26pm
    Having watched a couple of episodes of "living Dangerously" on SBS, you do realize that greedy people are busy raping the environment to replace rainforests and use the cleared land for quick buck ventures and ignore the consequences of their actions. It is not much good braying at people in Australia about driving to the shops instead of walking when habitat destruction and deforestation are almost a way of life in some of the developing nations. Overfishing which depletes existing fish stocks in the ocean is another sphere of action for the greedy and another example that is hard to police.
    For once, I shall agree with Mussitate that every little bit we can do to reduce waste and pollution is a step in the right direction. However, the greater problem is not a million Uncle Franks driving instead of walking, (which may not be ideal)but the pressure increased population puts on habitat and resources overseas. Expanding population and the need to provide for these people makes the fuss over carbon pollution very small potatoes indeed.
    BobK
    11th Dec 2014
    1:05am
    Mussitate,
    let's do not confuse Anthropogenic Climate Change aka Anthropogenic Global Warming (caused by raising levels of CO2) on one hand, and generally polluted environment on the other. Those are two completely different things. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, no matter how many times people like Penny Wong or Julia Gillard or Tim Flannery say it is. CO2 is an invisible gas without which life as we know it would not be possible on this planet. If you read my post again, you will find that I was talking about concentrations of this invisible gas in the atmosphere. In your comment you changed topic, and commented on something that just wasn't there.
    Seagull
    9th Dec 2014
    10:38am
    The climate Changes all the time, global climate alarmist is the new religion .2 ,000 million people don't have power , who are we to deny them electricity from coal. While we switch on our lights without thinking. As far as i am concerned the ETS was just away of transferring wealth and industries to the third world.
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    11:53am
    I have to disagree Seagull. When Third World countries start to 'develop', who do you think benefits?? Certainly not the poor. The 'trickle down effect' does NOT trickle down to the poor. Don't think for a moment that industry is set up in undeveloped/under developed countries to assist the poor to get out of poverty. B/s. It is to make money for those investing. If the Third World countries accept our bribe and sell us their carbon quota is that ethical or moral of us?? Are we not just killing our planet for more wealth?? Aren't we saying 'Only I matter'?? Are we not just killing us because we are greedy??
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    1:48pm
    Hmmmm Seagull. Should I believe you or should I believe the VAST amount of climate scientists? Hmmmm?
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    10:00am
    Climate Scientology ! A Big course in Uni's now ! And Big Bucks when You Graduate !
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    10:56am
    Particolor, you are right. But you need to hurry up, the whole scam may not last that much longer.
    Not all people are gullible, after all, and many have their own brains, too.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    2:04pm
    I also like all the peeps doing Law ?? (Lawyers) We will all have one each soon !!
    wally
    10th Dec 2014
    11:39pm
    I see Jen follows the bleating sheep of the scientific Climate Change hysterics because they tell us 99% of the world's scientists agree. I would like to point out that in the 15th Century 99% of the " scientists" in Christendom said they believed the world was flat. To say otherwise in those times would bring down upon the dissenters the wrath of His Holiness The Pope . He would declare them heretics and have them burned at the stake. We know what happened to the Flat earth Theory. I am waiting for the Man Made Climate Change/Global Warming/Ozone Layer Depletion Theory join the Y2K scare and the Flat Earth Theory on the scientific scrap heap.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    11:12am
    The Earth will exist for another 5 billion years and the ocean levels will rise and fall as they have done in the past. The climate will change constantly as it has previously. What is important is that we stop polluting the air we breath not only with harmful gases but also with the political spin from all sides of the debate. It would also be a big help for those who know a latin phrase or two (ie. 'et al') to stop trying to put a biblical spin on things.
    Et suppositio nil ponit in esse.
    Anonymous
    10th Dec 2014
    10:40pm
    Frank
    Et suppositio nil ponit in ease ….."And the supposition that nothing is brought into being".
    You refer to population increases? yes.
    Adrianus
    11th Dec 2014
    8:05am
    I'm saying, it doesn't matter how many times it is said it will not make it so.
    margie
    9th Dec 2014
    11:19am
    Climate change has always been and always will be, that is the nature of climate, it changes.
    This is the latest bandwagon to jump on, while all the hypocritical jumpers are living in their warm/airconditioned homes, driving their petrol guzzlers (4x drives, used in the city), plastic lawns which increase heat, buying and wasting truckloads of food, lights, dryers, all switched on whenever we want etc etc etc. Amazing how easy it is to criticise and do nothing but pontificate about what everyone else should be doing. And at the end of the day nothing will stop the climate changing, it's supposed to change.
    Luchar
    9th Dec 2014
    12:21pm
    Spot on, margie.

    What truly amazes me is that the people who are criticizing Abbott are the same ones popping their champagne corks over the recent USA/China agreement - an agreement which gives the green light to China to continue increasing its emissions for the next 16 years. Further, only the most naive would actually believe that, after 16 years, China would stick to its agreement if it felt the need to do otherwise. In the past year for which statistics are available, China increased its annual emissions by almost double Australia's total annual emissions, and the Abbott-haters would have us believe China is actually doing something for the world's climate. China is moving towards producing 20% of its power from non-fossil fuels by building more nuclear power stations, yet when Julie Bishop suggested nuclear power should be at least part of the conversation in Australia, she was howled down by Labor and the Greens.

    The simple truth of the matter is that it has been coal as a fuel and power source which has been responsible for bringing millions of the world's population out of poverty and will continue to be the world's cheapest and most efficient power source for years into the future. Those who believe that solar power and wind power will ever be able to replace coal as a base load power source are living in fantasy land. Further, other cheaper power sources such as gas and hydro (which would require the construction of dams) would also be violently opposed by the Greens.

    The question which really needs to be answered is: If, tomorrow, Australia were to reduce its emissions to zero, what impact would this have on the world's climate? I think we all know the answer to this!
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    12:35pm
    if Australia reduced its emissions by 5% it would show the world we are (nearly) serious about reducing carbon emissions. But money has closed that door. As I have said before, there is NO trickle down effect. The poor are left still poor and neglected. They do not prosper from enriching the country.

    As for the China/USA agreement, again it is not going to benefit the poverty stricken workers in China nor USA. Neither is the China/Australia Free Trade agreement going to benefit all Australians.
    EELS
    9th Dec 2014
    1:02pm
    Ditto Margie and Luchar. This 'climate change' religion has got out of hand.
    The only money that is changing hands Student is that being made by the renewables industry (part of which funded the Greens election campaign and the (disgusting coal) baron Clive Palmer who gave his preferences to Sarah Hanson Young. Hypocrisy of the highest order. If the sea was going to rise that much why would Tim Flannery (the Paleontologist climate guru whose predictions have all come to naught) and the carbon tax advocate Cate Blanchett both buy properties on the Hawkesbury river. Not a good move if they really believe what they preach to others!
    KSS
    9th Dec 2014
    1:07pm
    Luchar poses the question " If, tomorrow, Australia were to reduce its emissions to zero, what impact would this have on the world's climate?:

    To which Student responds: 'if Australia reduced its emissions by 5% it would show the world we are (nearly) serious about reducing carbon emissions".

    So the answer is no impact on climate then but we sure would 'show them'!
    Bes
    9th Dec 2014
    1:13pm
    Agreed margie, I am from England and I remember my Dad telling me how Grandads truck was snowed in a village for a week (before my time) 1947 marked the coldest winter for 100 years, the winter of 1963/4 was almost ice age (George Harrison wrote 'Here Comes the Sun' at the end of it). Here I took a bus tour with a very learned Aboriginal Elder (University trained) who explained that the Indigenous people knew 6 season, not the European 4, and they were not always the same...but they instinctively adjusted to the changes. We watch calendars!
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    1:25pm
    ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh EELS, you are doing my head in .... Climate change is not only about warming. IF the sea warms 2 degrees C, I don't think we can begin to understand the danger to us. We wouldn't have to worry about the Great Barrier Reef, or saving the whales as they would all die. The warmth given off in the trading ocean routes would change our rainfalls and dry periods, and fish stocks and water levels and ... and.... and.. just about everything. The heat given off by dry land and the ocean currents would kill most of the world. I do not understand it (I am not that smart) but I am smart enough to understand something is happening to our climate. Maybe it's 'evolution', but it is changing and it may have happened before, but it was not as severe as what is happening now. One's common sense must tell one that something can only keep changing/evolving so many times and then it must end and either go off in another direct or just stop being. The world as we know it is not going to end next year because of climate change, but it is going to end down the track. Maybe man will destroy his race himself and there will be no world then and no need to try and stop the deadly carbon problem.
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    1:43pm
    no, KKS,I did not say that. A 5% reduction in carbon emissions would lower the damage being done to the atmosphere, but how can we tell other countrys what to do when we don't do it?? At the moment the almighty $ does have great sway on what we do and don't do. We need to increase our emissions target to 20% decrease atleast (by 2030) seeing as we are one of the highest polluters. It's not a case of "We'll show them" it's a case of "We'll show them how it's done"

    People want to use renewables, but the cost is too high at the moment. There is no Gov. incentive to go 'clean' only incentives to keep using coal. We were leading the way once upon a time, but now we are skeptics of the lowest order.
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    1:52pm
    Hmmm Margie. The only difference is the enormous amount of climate-destroying polution that we have right now and the vast deforestation of our planet. So it does't make a difference? Hmmm. ok.
    Alula
    9th Dec 2014
    5:39pm
    Eels: Since when did science become a religion? Seems to me the two are based on entirely different methods.
    maxchugg
    9th Dec 2014
    6:03pm
    I'm simply fed up with the lies!
    Where is the evidence for abnormal climate change?
    Every single prediction the climate alarmists have made has failed miserably.
    The ocean isn't rising, the earth hasn't warmed for at least 17 years, the Antarctic ice is a little above average, the Arctic ice not only has not melted as predicted, it is currently at average levels for the period in which satellite observations have been made.
    In 2009 scientists at the University of East Anglia admitted that they had no evidence in support of global warming:
    From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
    "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
    Another five years of desperate searching has changed nothing. The global warming scare is a scam!
    Paulodapotter
    10th Dec 2014
    1:09am
    There will all be flat earthers who will never believe in the science. It just really annoys me that I have to get sucked down into oblivion with them while spending all my energy trying to save them. Poor old human beings. Can't stop shooting each other and can't stop shooting themselves in the foot. It'd be comical if it wasn't so tragic.
    maxchugg
    10th Dec 2014
    9:41am
    Paulodapotter, insolence is not logic, and resorting to personal attacks only highlights the weakness of your argument.
    Forget the so-called science, where is the evidence?
    Surely, if every prediction made by people claiming to be scientists falls into a heap, these are the people who are the ones who are shooting themselves in the foot.
    I repeat, forget the name calling and produce evidence in support of your argument as I have done in support of mine.
    Anonymous
    10th Dec 2014
    10:52pm
    maxchugg

    Look around you… you don't have to even look at the term 'climate change', just look at the POLLUTION of both land and oceans and the overfishing and the excess use of exhaustive cultivation. Even IF climate change is natural… humans may NOT survive it BUT IF we take action NOW to clean up our lands and oceans and share some of the wealth worldwide instead of hoarding it greedily and wastefully, whilst forcing others to starve and use THEIR countries as waste tips….. we may just have enough time to allow for humans to research and ensure survival of our race.

    Either way, it HURTS nothing to START doing some work to CLEAN UP this planet.

    My query is WHY would you actually oppose moves to CLEAN UP our pollution and destruction of wildlife, especially in the oceans…. just because you don't like the term 'climate change'. Nothing BAD will come out of it!
    maxchugg
    11th Dec 2014
    1:35pm
    Mussitate, the subject under discussion was climate change, not global pollution On that subject I actually share your concerns.
    Climate change is a fraud on a colossal scale and the trillions of dollars spent in a futile effort to combat the forces of nature could be better employed, and dealing with pollution of the land and seas could well be a good place to start.
    miss aisle
    11th Dec 2014
    4:29pm
    Thanks for pointing out the differences, maxchugg.
    wally
    9th Dec 2014
    11:21am
    So Guy Regan and the (nameless, faceless) non government organisations in Europe says Australia needs to cut carbon emissions and save the world from ourselves. Considering who the person claims to speak for, there is no surprise there. If Australia, along with other fossil fuel producing countries is supposed to hang its head in shame, Mr Regan should also look at countries that import and burn Australia's coal if he wants to make this a finger pointing exercise.
    So what do the mysterious, nameless and faceless European non government organisations want the world to do? How do we achieve the goals these organisations and their mouthpieces like Guy Regan want us all to conform to? Was the carbon tax as instituted by the Gillard government the answer? Paying more for everything for no observable result seems to be what that did. The repeal of the Carbon tax does not appear to have caused a corresponding decrease in the prices we pay for groceries and consumer items either. ( I suspect the retailers may have pocketed the savings there but that is only a suspicion.) How was the money collected by the carbon tax to be spent? What was the carbon trading scheme supposed to do and how was it supposed to work? Was Al Gore (and perhaps Kevin Rudd) hoping to make a financial killing from becoming a "wheeler dealer" in some sort of Carbon Credit trading stock market?
    Why should we be convinced that by throwing money at a problem is going to make said problem go away? It hasn't worked at eliminating poverty, for example. Taxing poor people in advanced rich countries appears to benefit the fat cats in the poorer countries who rip off the poor by mis appropriating the money for their own advantage. An example of this might be found in examining why medical facilities are so inadequate in the Ebola afflicted countries in West Africa.
    So it seems that making people part with their hard earned and/or go without is going to save the world? Are these people promising that we and our descendants are going to be eating our pies in the skies in our castles in the air at some undefined time in the future? While these unnamed organisations are at it, are they going to make the volcanoes pay pollution tax too? Or are they going to plug up the volcanoes so no more polluted gases squirt out?
    I note that Mr Regan and those he speaks for have not mentioned nuclear power in their quest for a cleaner, greener world. Were the world to go into nuclear power in a big way (where it would be safe to build nuclear plants where no Fault lines and earthquake prone zones exist to avoid future Fukishima disasters) then a lot of the evils of carbon emission would cease to exist. Redundant Aussie coal miners could be used to dig underground storage facilities in the proven geologically stable parts of Australia in the uninhabited outback to store nuclear waste.
    So maybe an Australian government could turn all of the global warming/ ozone layer shrinking climate change fear and loathing hysteria to Australia's benefit through nuclear power generation.
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    12:24pm
    wally, selling coal is all about money. Money for the seller and money for the buyer. Al Gore and Kevin Rudd stood to make no profit by opposing carbon.

    Are you serious about using nuclear power?? I really do not believe there is anywhere 'safe' in the world to build them. OK, I accept it may be safer if not near a fault line, but what about human error?? What about the 'unexpected' or 'absolutely no reason' scenario?? Not to even mention the disposal of nuclear waste. Do we sell that to poorer countries too?? Governments are a reflexion of the countries people and I am starting to think we as a people are well below par too. I love my country and her people but I do worry.

    wally, I am afraid your 'tongue-in-cheek' post was too near the truth in places.

    What is the answer?? Is capitalism destroying itself?? Is 'common sense' owned only by a powerfull few??
    KSS
    9th Dec 2014
    1:14pm
    Actually student, nuclear power is one of the very few cost effective sources of power left. Please note the UK is in the top three countries in this report and they have had nuclear power for decades without incident. Australia even has its own uranium source! Perhaps the redundant miners could dig that up first before they dig the holes for burial of the used rods.
    EELS
    9th Dec 2014
    1:55pm
    Wonderful piece Wally. Some good sense.
    As for you Student how naive you are to say " Al Gore and Kevin Rudd stood to make no profit by opposing carbon". Al Gore has made billions selling his product 'the inconvenient truth" and all the associated renewables he has invested in. This whilst jetting around the world in his fuel guzzling private jet/s spouting his mantra to those who are fool enough to pay to listen.
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    2:26pm
    I agree KKS. However, you are not addressing the problem of disposing of the waste from the nuclear energy. Also, from what I can understand a nuclear plant can only serve a small amount of people. A bit like the desalination plant in Sydney that can only serve a couple of suburbs. I have no idea how many nuclear plants would be needed for a place like Sydney. Also the carbon foot-print to build a power plant is extremely high too.

    I am aware Australia has the best quality uranium in the world, and I hope somewhere down the track, progress will find another and a better use for uranium and coal. (How I used to love returning to the country in the old steam 'rattler' train)

    I am more concerned with the cost of getting rid of uranium waste. The $ cost and the cost to human life if all does not go to plan. Accident DO happen.
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    2:51pm
    you got me, EELS :). I knew as soon as I posted I had made a mistake and left myself wide open. And I agree about the fuel guzzling planes, but what is the alternative?? Technology mainly gets touted when it is going to benefit someone financially. A scientist in Brisbane Uni ( now I am not too sure of the ins and outs here) has invented a way to use oxygen ( or air, I am not sure) to fuel space craft. When it is viable it will become commercial ( after we get rid of the gas, and petrol and coal and so on, so that is in the way, way future) and I am sure that will benefit the atmosphere. But it is in NO power person's best interest to promote this breakthrough. USA is about 10 years behind us in discovering this scientific breakthrough and the Rusians are slightly behind America.

    EELS, I agree Gore has made money from his political stance on carbon, and I agree he has profited from investing money into the renewable field, but isn't that the same for the non-believers argument too?? Aren't they persuaded by their financial investment in coal/gas/oil?? Do you agree most of the feeling anti- renewables is from people who have a vested interest in retaining coal, gas and oil?? Uranium has taken a back seat due to the fear of uranium, and no politician is game enough to handle it at this point in time.
    Tom Tank
    9th Dec 2014
    2:56pm
    The superficial cost of nuclear power is low but that is because the capital cost of building such a plant and the even more expensive cost of de-commissioning it is not included and is horrendously expensive.
    There is no proven method of safe disposal of used uranium rods. Currently they are stored in special water cooled containers awaiting a safe permanent method to be developed. They are dangerous for many many years.
    The UK and France have used nuclear power for a long time without a known accident in a nuclear power station but the UK had so many problems with a nuclear facility on the Irish Sea that they changed the name from Windscale because of its dreadful reputation.
    The basic difference between a coal or oil fired power station is the method of heating the water to steam to drive the turbines. Then of course there are the measures that need to be put in place to prevent accidents like Three Mile Island in the U.S and of course Chernoybl.
    Nuclear power stations can be as large as a coal fired station and in terms of particulate emissions are much cleaner. Would you like one down the road from you or your children? Would you offer up your backyard to store spent fuel rods until a permanent storage is found for them?
    Yes we are faced with climate change but the question no one seems to face up to is it largely due to overpopulation resulting in de-forestation on a massive scale which is also being pushed along by our Capitalistic economies?
    KSS
    9th Dec 2014
    3:02pm
    Student Australia already has nuclear plants. Where do you think cancer treatments and other nuclear medicines come from? Australia simply can't afford to be blinkered on this issue because of the scare tactics of the Greens and their 'friends'. Australia has plenty of 'empty' space where disposal of nuclear detritus could be stored safely until such time as technology catches up.

    And yes accidents do happen. People have been killed in coal mines and on gas rigs for the past 100+ years.
    Kato
    9th Dec 2014
    6:55pm
    The title 'Inconvenient Truth' sounds like a carpet bagging salesman of the highest order and hasn't he made a handsome profit from all his scaremongering.
    Using computer generated graphics without the science apart from the one's in his pocket.
    wally
    9th Dec 2014
    7:24pm
    What I intended to be a jab at the Nameless faceless ones that populate the Greenie do gooder pressure groups bemoaning Australia's sale of coal has provoked an interesting, if not always well informed, discussion of Nuclear power, We hear a lot about the catastrophic explosion at Chernobyl. The undamaged reactors at the Chernobyl complex are still producing electricity and the whole thing blew up because of human error of the "left hand being unaware of what the right hand was doing" kind. This was an avoidable accident, had precautions been followed. Since the other reactor cores are still in use today, there seems to be no problem with the nuclear power plant itself. It is just that the operators let their collective guard down for those few fatal seconds. We all know how that ended. Fukushima? The wrong facility in the wrong place. Again. human error in the original planning of the facility. Three Mile Island scared the hell out of everybody in the 1970's, but nobody died. For interest, how many coal miners have died in coal mine disasters since, say 1945, when the world was made aware of Atomic power?
    We also hear about how computers in the future will do a better job than we do in driving our motorcars, commuter trains and aeroplanes. Maybe we will see computers programmed to operate nuclear power plants replacing humans. That might give the fans of the 2001 Space Odyssey movie who remember Hal a shudder or two. Would armies of computer hackers work around the clock to sabotage the computerised operating systems in the nuclear plants? Too early to tell on that one.
    Since nuclear plants need huge amounts of water to keep their reactors cooled, thus presenting them from overheating and exploding, Australian nuclear plants would be sited along the coast line. Co incidentally, Australia's largest cities are along the coast, which would make nuclear power plants by the sea providing electricity to these cities a no brainer. By replacing coal fired power plants (and all the nasty carbon pollution they create), nuclear generated electricity would be a game changer in helping make Australia reach the reduced carbon pollution dream.
    Paulodapotter
    10th Dec 2014
    1:13am
    In fact Wally, volcanoes might be the only thing that saves us. They emit huge quantities of sulphur dioxide which does the opposite to carbon dioxide. This is the reason why North America suffered no summers for a few years after the eruption of St Helens.
    Anonymous
    10th Dec 2014
    11:11pm
    Wow Wally… you taken a smart tablet or something… who ARE YOU???? Or are you quoting from an article… could you quote it because it would be interesting.


    THE REAL POINT:

    WHY oh WHY wally, would Australia want Nuclear Energy WHEN we have that much SUN and WIND to power EUROPE as well as Australia.

    We would NOT need to deal with radioactive and dangerous substances AND we would not need to find a WASTE site for these radioactive and dangerous substances which last for hundreds of years. Nor would be need to depend on DWINDLING resources OR need to pay exorbitant costs for those resources to power the Nuclear Energy Plant.

    PLUS the CAPITAL cost of even ONE of those Nuclear Energy Plants is INHIBITIVE and would take something like 30 odd years to get back the CAPITAL COST, in savings.

    Your argument is FALLACIOUS and SHORT SITED and does NOT compare to other alternatives other than OIL. Hence, it is FLAWED and totally useless.

    Are YOU getting paid by the word to promote this ARCHAIC, DANGEROUS, COSTLY means of energy generation.


    PS….A point on the Fukushima NUCLEAR DISASTER…. CORPORATE GREED was the main reason for the disaster. IF the CORRECT standard of generators had been installed (cut corners to amass even more profits), the disaster would probably not have occurred.
    wally
    11th Dec 2014
    12:00am
    Welcome back, Musso. As I see it, the main flaw with renewable energy sources are that they do not provide electricity generation 24 hours per day. Like it or not, population increase does result in an increase in demand for electricity and this does not look like falling off soon, no matter how many people run around turning off their lights, hot water heaters and other appliances.
    I admit that nuclear power plants are expensive to build, but the French have perfected a sort of pre fabricated Nuclear plant which would reduce the cost of building them instead of the custom designed "tailor made to measure" nuclear plants of the 1960's. That, together with the plentiful supplies of uranium existing in Australia, still makes nuclear power a feasible solution for Australia's pollution free power needs. I think human error can be eliminated if precautions are observed, thus avoiding Chernobyl like catastrophes.
    I agree with you about Fukushima. Wrong design. Wrong place. Wrong.
    PS Speaking of archaic means of energy production, I think you have overlooked the good old windmill. Unfortunately, when the wind doesn't blow, they wont go!
    wally
    11th Dec 2014
    11:52am
    Musso, to back track a bit about the cost of building nuclear power plants as opposed to renewable energy sources, I recall that Kevin Rudd, (in one of the few, sane moments he had,) created the policy of granting rebates to households that installed solar panels on their roofs. Then the rebate scheme was suspended and halted. Why? The scheme was deemed by the Rudd government to be too expensive to proceed with.. Keeping that in mind, how much money would it cost to produce and provide enough solar panels to supply all the electricity needs of Australia's major cities like Melbourne and Sydney? A costing comparison between Solar panel power and nuclear power would be interesting.
    Polly Esther
    9th Dec 2014
    11:23am
    Some 13 million individual polluters in Australia, versus some 2 billion 600 thousand individual polluters in China and India alone. Add on all the other countries populations and I wonder how we can even be in the contest, let alone be judged as leaders?
    'People in glass houses'
    Kato
    9th Dec 2014
    11:30am
    Yep a lot like the UN blaming Australia for everything it can. Why to make us cough up more MONEY play the inferiority complex why they sit on there collective fattened asses and assets.
    Polly Esther
    9th Dec 2014
    11:44am
    I got confused. The figure should 2 billion 600 million, not 600 thousand, and that's even worse, Sheez!!
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    1:56pm
    Flying doctor. So we should sit on our hands? Yair right. Shame about the Grandkids.
    EELS
    9th Dec 2014
    1:56pm
    Yes and yes, Kato and the Flying Doctor.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    3:05pm
    Jen, were you thinking about the grandkids when you voted for those economic vandals? By the way what sort of car do you drive? Electric, I suppose? I know you and others of your view are doing the right thing for the environment.
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    3:44pm
    You're wrong again Frank, a) if you're talking about the Labor party, they were not vandals of any kind, unlike this current sad bunch (economic, environmental...I could go on) and b) nor did I vote for them. The labor party, more than ever, is the better option of the two. And yes, I am doing the right thing by the environment. Are you?
    wally
    9th Dec 2014
    7:40pm
    Jen if you were truly serious about doing to do the right thing by the environment, you would not be wasting valuable resources using your computer. The fanatic Greenies would tell you to save the environment and live in a tree, but I shall not. Are you suggesting that we save the world for our grand kids so they can have the fun of buggering up the planet? Are you?
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    9:50am
    Granma Duck had an Electric Car !!
    Kato
    10th Dec 2014
    11:38am
    Funny how the UN holds it's hand out and they fill it with $200 million. What for climate change research. Very strange when your policy is we don't believe in it.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    2:35pm
    I don't follow Islam either but I'm Donating Anyhow ??
    Anonymous
    10th Dec 2014
    11:25pm
    Fallacious Arguments….. what the hell has Islam got to do with anything AND what the hell has China vs Australia and USA vs Australia got to do with anything. This is a world wide thing AND Australia is NOT pulling its weight… as simple as that.

    FOR FRANK, it must be pointed out that Australia was UNDER LABOR:
    - the BEST economy in the world (yes, even better than China/Russia/USA/UK)
    - got a triple (AAA) rating for the first time EVER
    - currency included in international basket for the first time EVER
    - one of the MOST EGALITARIAN nation in the WORLD (wealth spread out)

    Australia was recognised INTERNATIONALLY and our MANAGEMENT techniques and our BALANCED mix of business and national interest was viewed with interest worldwide. Switzerland has even started to adopt some of our previous policies.

    NOW, however, Australia has become a laughing stock because of Abbott who is certainly USELESS as a STATESMAN and like a DINOSAUR in his outlook and policies which essentially spew forth Corporate (foreign) WISH LISTS, that belong to another old and ugly era (see what has happened to the USA if you want to view the extreme downward spiral of this ONCE mighty nation - due to the same dinosaur economic policies that Abbott is trying to introduce here).

    Oh! The GP co-payment PLAN was TAKEN DIRECTLY from the USA… who, by the way, have one of the WORST HEALTH SYSTEM in the WORLD.

    When I talk of health system, I am NOT talking about the superior and extensive medical provisions made to the 5% wealth elite who are leaseholders for the corporations that control the USA and its government. So don't come back and tell me that the USA has some of the best facilities in the world because who the hell cares, if that is the case when NO ONE but the 5% can access them!!!
    Adrianus
    11th Dec 2014
    8:52am
    Musso, you are willing to forgive labor for their incompetence as a parent would for it's child in a display of unconditional love. I admire that sort of loyalty but it is misplaced and wasted on politicians.
    I still recall the tears and hand wringing, the look of helplessness from our labor/greens government, and Gillard's promise to delay her Christmas holiday while men women and children were enticed to buy their ticket from the people smugglers and dying on the journey. I still recall Rudd saying that Abbott could not stop the boats without Indonesia waging war. That was the real concern with Labor. They got pushed around by everyone. There was no responsible assertiveness. They were out of their depth. They still are. Shorten would say nothing to Putin. A bully and a thug when it comes to the helpless but a coward when face to face with a bigger bully.

    I never mentioned the USA. If you think the idea of a GP co-payment was a replication then why was it not copied from Bob Hawke or New Zealand? Or somewhere else? What does it matter?
    miss aisle
    11th Dec 2014
    10:33am
    Frank - an excellent explanation to help people understand.
    Jen
    11th Dec 2014
    11:21am
    Wally, I can only imagine you were on drugs when you typed that rubbish.
    Cassius
    9th Dec 2014
    11:51am
    Australia's so called contribution to climate change is like a pimple on the bum of an elephant compared with most of the rest of the world. Lets keep things in perspective
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    12:14pm
    Yes, so let's stop focusing on the tiny pimple !

    What we do (or don't do) in Australia, isn't going to give the elephant "gas".
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    12:38pm
    a pimple can grow into a boil. Even if our lessening our carbon emissions does very little to help the environment, it is a first step and you know when one step leads.
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    1:59pm
    Sure, we can do our bit,
    but let's not make a mountain out of a molehill !
    Kato
    9th Dec 2014
    7:05pm
    Yeah But! Yeah But what if the tiny pimple gets newked' does it turn into a molehill which then morphs into a mountain? Think About it. They are finding some big fish with big pimples in the waters around Fukishima.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    2:38pm
    They are finding some Big Fish with Pimples on their Tongues here !!!
    ericn_3
    9th Dec 2014
    11:54am
    Some people do not recognise WEATHER and prefer to use "climate change"! As Tony Abbott said UTTER CRAP! There has been no global warming over the last 17 years so all the Climate Change fans need to learn how to properly evaluate the natural phenomena. Simple answer is to set standards and heavily fine those who breach those standards.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    12:18pm
    "global warming" Now there's a term I have not heard for a while?
    Luchar
    9th Dec 2014
    12:33pm
    That's right, Frank. Once the alarmists realised that their fraudulent computer models gave results far removed from reality and that the world was not warming, they decided that they would try to control the world's weather. Now, every couple of years they all come together where the only agreement they are able to reach is which world city has sufficient 5-star resorts to host their next talkfest.
    KSS
    9th Dec 2014
    2:12pm
    Well it wasn't Frank so the mantra had to change. Like the climate! Or should that be the weather?
    dougie
    9th Dec 2014
    4:35pm
    Which Australian scientist was involved as an adviser to the Gillard Government and who was also involved in a company developing an alternative means of developing power generation through an underground heat transfer system, which company was granted millions of dollars to develop this system. Which company expended all of these grants without actually achieving even the most minute result? Which scientist was dismissed from his role when the Abbott Government came to power. Good on you Tony and co. Fair go to we Aussies who care but are sceptical of the value of such grants. There have been so many rorts on the public purse that it is now time to call a halt.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    5:30pm
    dougie would that be the same scientist who is now on a new project, spearheading the introduction of the Tasmanian Devil into Victoria?
    wally
    9th Dec 2014
    7:31pm
    What ever happened to Julia's favourite climate scientists, Drs Flannery and Garneau?
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    9:41pm
    Wally, I see Flannery occasionally on the ABC trying to scare the wits out of us. The ABC offers the best audience for him I guess.
    Kato
    10th Dec 2014
    11:43am
    well they were alarmed into parting with $200 million of taxpayers money?
    dougie
    10th Dec 2014
    1:29pm
    Kato, Yes but why? who conned who? I do not know and only time will tell.
    The person involved will always self promote and get in someones ear to ensure that he makes a lot of lucre from whatever scheme he espouses.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    2:41pm
    Ill bet the catch is something else will Slide through the Senate soon ??
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    2:56pm
    Seems the UN want more say in our foreign aid funding. I wonder if the $200m will be put to better use?
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    3:17pm
    Probably wasn't enough ?? Or only the First Instalment ??
    Adrianus
    11th Dec 2014
    9:03am
    Hewson reckons it could have been $10m a year more. I think because it is coming from the kitty that may have been used to buy medical, food, water and other essentials, it could have been less.
    If you have deep pockets and you want to maintain your ranking, like USA you can afford more. Foreign aid donations should be based on people's capacity to pay and how many tax payers are paying it. We only have 6 million workers and some corporates paying tax in Australia.
    particolor
    11th Dec 2014
    9:29am
    Send them 10 Bucks !!
    Hasbeen
    9th Dec 2014
    12:00pm
    When the governments are pouring a billion dollars a day into the so called rentable industries, making all the smarties very rich, there is plenty of money to pay a few NGOs & greenie organisations a lot of money to promote the scam.

    It is interesting that most journalists, a group not known for understanding much requiring mathematics, have fallen all over he scam. I guess it makes for easy stories on a slow news day. I wonder if even one of them actually understands the science, or why it is wrong.

    Thank god we have a PM who has the guts to say bullsh1t to the scam, & save Ozzies a fortune.

    Keep it up Tony.
    Tom Tank
    9th Dec 2014
    12:15pm
    Sorry but you lost me here as Tony is going to pay polluters 2.5 billion dollars to cut carbon emissions. I find that hard to see where he is going to save us money as he will be transferring taxpayers money to big corporations.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    12:37pm
    Tom, I think Has been is comparing the massive waste under the previous government. Tony Abbott did try hard to stop the Greens aided by the Unions in sending $10b to big business. The ALP government had already given big business $30b in carbon tax compensation. What generally happens when labor govern, is a transfer of money to big business who in turn transfer some of it to the unions, who then lend it to the ALP election campaign.
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    2:05pm
    Sun and wind are safe and free. Under the Labor Government, renewables grew faster in Australia than anywhere else. But of course, we've gone backwards now. Denmark uses more sun and wind than Australia does. But then, Denmark is progressive, in all the ways Australia used to be. Pity.
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    2:13pm
    Thanks for explaining that little self-centred scheme, Frank.
    "Give" out in one hand,
    then get the other hand ready to receive
    some of it back!

    Labor pays off big business (big time), & simply waits..
    until the unions receive some, & simply waits..
    until it can be borrowed from them,
    to sway voters to lean towards the left!
    Wow! Good to know how things work.
    KSS
    9th Dec 2014
    2:18pm
    Sun and wind are safe and free." Basic commodities sun and wind may be. (Although the cancer council may disagree to some extent). BUT Jen, try asking those who live near the wind turbines if they are safe. And ask those who installed solar panels whether they got them free.

    I think you are overstepping a little when you say they are safe and free renewables. Don't think I disagree that we should be making more use of them but sweeping statements don't help anyone.
    Tom Tank
    9th Dec 2014
    3:01pm
    Frank that is quite a conspiracy theory you have going there. If that was true how come the current Royal Commission into Building Unions, altho' it's terms of reference are the building industry as a whole, didn't highlight this?
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    3:09pm
    Like it or not KSS, they ARE free. Yes we have to invest in them first, that goes without saying, (same as a coal fired power station or a nuclear power station,) before we benefit from the free and safe energy. There is no proof wind farms cause harm. Anyway, who lives near wind farms? I've never heard of wind farms in a built up area.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    3:31pm
    Tom, I have been listening live to the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. That's how I know this stuff. The RC got very interesting when the CFMEU officials were in the stand. Those QC's are very very good at getting to the facts. Well at least most of them are. You can tell who the softies are.

    http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx
    Tom Tank
    9th Dec 2014
    10:30pm
    It takes two to tango so where were the Builders who were the other part of the corruption? They haven't been on the stand have they. Please don't say the Builders are cleanskins in all this because they are not.
    The personnel in the Royal Commission were chosen to achieve a particular result and that is what they are doing.
    I am not trying to say the Building Unions are cleanskins either but this Commission is loaded one way as a political excercise.
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    12:59am
    Jen, I think your glasses are too rose tinted. Wind may be free, but its speed must be between X and Y m/sec, any slower or faster, and turbine is switched off. Also consider: Wind is not necessarily blowing 24x7. When it is not blowing, electricity needs to be supplied by good old coal powered power station, which must be kept "hot" in readiness. We can't let the power station go cold, because it takes up to 24 hours to "cold start" a power station before it can be brought online. As you see, there isn't much difference in CO2 whether we have turbines or not. Would be cheaper to keep using the good old power station as before, and save ourselves all the expenses of installing turbines in the first place. They are subsidised with mine and yours taxes, anyway.
    You see, the truth is often very different to what Greens and other 'progressives' would love you to believe.
    Jen
    10th Dec 2014
    8:07am
    BobK, yet wind farms are being built all over the world, except Australia....
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    12:42pm
    Tom, do you have any evidence or inkling that could persuade me to agree with you that it is a political exercise?
    If they uncover a crook builder during the RC that's a bonus. Tom you would have to agree, these union bosses are very well paid, when you consider one was offered $12m to retire, so to speak. I think the term they used was 'F... off money.'
    Paddles
    10th Dec 2014
    10:18pm
    Jen

    Does that make the rest of the world right and Australia wrong?

    I suspect a bit of cultural cringing in what you say.
    Adrianus
    11th Dec 2014
    10:26am
    Jen,
    What renewable energy costs.
    "While wind energy is becoming more competitive, it’s still more expensive than coal and natural gas-fired power stations which supply nearly 90 per cent of the electricity in the NEM. As a result, the RET effectively works to subsidise wind energy and other renewables. The costs associated with meeting the RET are paid by all consumers via the costs they pay in their standard electricity bills. The cost of the RET is not detailed separately on the bills, rather it is included in the tariff charged. The New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal estimates that, assuming a typical household consumes 7 megawatt hours of electricity each year, the RET adds up to $100 to the household’s electricity bills annually. This amount is expected to increase as 2020 approaches." -Origin
    Ruby
    9th Dec 2014
    12:27pm
    The last person to try controlling nature. Failed. His name was Canute. His subjects treated him as a God. To prove that he wasn't he attempted to control the tides. Now so called experts are saying that Tony Abbott is a God and that he should alter the climate. What rubbish. CLIMATE CHANGED IS CYCLICAL. Check your history.
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    1:00pm
    Canute!! Oooops, sorry I thought you said "Katoot' from the AIME (??) Insurance add. Sorry :) What a great guy he was :)
    Paddles
    10th Dec 2014
    10:22pm
    Ruby

    Right with you on that comment but you must realise that some references to this topic mention it in the context of religion. That is quite apposite in my opinion as they both share a cardinal quality of "Faith". It reinforces my life long stance as an agnostic.
    retroy
    9th Dec 2014
    12:58pm
    AS a former scientist I was always sceptical of this global warming assertion, knowing that the planet has been through many different climates in its history, and the history of man kind is so small by comparison.
    Coincidentally, I read an article on the internet this morning which is very plausible so to all of you with two eyes open I commend it to you.
    If you only have one eye open then perhaps this article could induce you to open the other.

    It can be found at

    https://w3.newsmax.com/LP/Finance/CTI/Dark-Winter?dkt_nbr=v7svwawh

    Please comment on this forum after you have read it.
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    1:06pm
    retroy, I am surprised that as a former scientist you don't have access to academic material that would be more believable.
    retroy
    9th Dec 2014
    1:15pm
    Well it did not open your other eye!
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    2:17pm
    You encouraged him, retroy !
    But he wouldn't listen ??
    Kato
    10th Dec 2014
    11:46am
    what if it is a glass eye?
    dougie
    9th Dec 2014
    1:00pm
    Have you ever been outside at night in Australia? Have you ever looked in awe at the moon and stars? Have you ever in Australia watched a shooting star or a satellite passing over?
    Have you ever been to places like USA - China - Japan and many European countries. You find it hard to see the sky in some places during daylight - let alone see the moon and stars at night. So tell me who is doing all of the polluting?

    Australia may not be the cleanest country in the world in relation to Global Warming but certainly do not classify us as one of the worst.

    Many of the policies which seem to be indicated that we should pursue are policies being pushed by people or companies or indeed countries with a barrow to push for them to benefit financially. People such as Al Gore who are tied into fortune making through the global warming push.

    Remember the Y2K bug that was going to end the world - planes would drop from the sky - every computer in the world would crash - the banks would not operate - pensions and benefits would not be paid. Who were the people who made money from that little episode ? The people who pushed that particular barrow of course and do you know what they quoted scientific journals and logic.

    The people who pose the most information on global warming are those who fly around the world in private jet planes - who have massive mansions which are well lit and warmed with generated heat.

    Give us a break!
    EELS
    9th Dec 2014
    2:03pm
    Well said dougie.
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    2:28pm
    Excellent post, dougie.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    9:26am
    But tony rides a Push Bike and reads books by Candle Light ?
    Kato
    10th Dec 2014
    11:48am
    under the glow of Joe's cigar.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    2:49pm
    Well that turned out very Silvery Moonish didn't it ??
    Tombo
    9th Dec 2014
    2:01pm
    Student - you appear to be very knowledgeable about Climate Change so I thought I'd ask if you can provide the underlying theorem that shows how CO2 causes global warming. I don't mean Arrenhius' laboratory experiment - the climate would appear to be far too complex for that, and I don't mean producing evidence of warming, that could be caused by influences other than CO2, and I don't mean the output from computer models, that's simply not evidence. I mean a mathematical equation like Einstein's e=mc2 or Newton's
    ac = v2/R. For Climate Change the equation would obviously link a determined amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which, when combined with a unit of time, causes a certain rise in degrees Centigrade. It would also somehow have to account for the recent disturbing 'hiatus' in average global temperatures.

    However, climate science is a science (or so we're told)- shouldn't be too hard. I look forward to seeing it.
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    2:26pm
    Tombo, Now that is getting to the very heart of climate change/global warming.
    I would also look forward to seeing it !
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    3:14pm
    Tombo, I am but a mere student in life. I have an opened mind for a closed mind learns nothing. I am not a greenie but I am a learner and lover of nature. I saw a doco. on the English scientist with that dreadful deadly disease (I can't remember his name nor his illness )and he spoke briefly about the changing climate, Co2, Oxygen, heat and protons. It was to do with the beginning of time. He said the weather/the climate is changing. But he didn't go into it in depth as it was not the topic for discussion. I am not a scientist nor have I studied science, but everything interests me.
    As I said, I am but a mere student.
    retroy
    9th Dec 2014
    3:47pm
    A mere student of life, tut tut.
    Never studied science but has the impertinence to criticise some one who has a science degree !
    A real student of life would know when to listen and when to speak.
    Methinks this student did not study life 101 too well.
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    1:28am
    Student, I am not sure you are choosing to listen to the right people. If someone talks about beginning of time (the "Big Bang" cosmological theory, I presume), climate change and protons in one breath, I would really suspect he is pulling my leg if he calls himself a 'scientist'. I can't see any meaningful connection between today's climate on planet Earth, and the 'birth' of our whole Universe some 14,000,000,000 years ago. Can you?

    As for your further study, may I suggest one place, that is "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change": http://wattsupwiththat.com/
    With latest count of 212,624,707 views, Anthony Watts must be doing something right.
    EELS
    9th Dec 2014
    2:04pm
    There seems to be more realists than dupes on this site. What a relief not everyone has been caught up in this great big global scam!
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    2:11pm
    Thank you for your wisdom Eels. We appreciate the benefit of your credentials in climate science.
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    2:23pm
    The realists don't have to make up stories !
    EELS
    9th Dec 2014
    3:20pm
    I wouldn't be arrogant enough to put my credentials on this blog so how do you know what they are Jen?
    KSS
    9th Dec 2014
    2:08pm
    Yet another group demanding money from the Government on the grounds that Australia is a wealthy country so should be doing more.

    And what exactly is Australia's wealth based on? Well let me see, that would be, in part, iron, coal, gas, precious metals and other 'stuff' we dig up and sell. And what do we do with the money we get? Well some goes to those who dig of course but the rest goes to pay for, oh I don't know, but maybe education, health, social welfare, defence and a host of other things that we as citizens of "wealthy country" want, nay demand, as our entitlements.

    Putting aside climate change for just a moment, given that it takes millennia to form those commodities, they will eventually run out as we dig them up faster than nature can replenish them. It is already happening in Australia and mines are being closed; which is why fracking has been mooted and even implemented in some areas. It may not be in my lifetime, but we will need to replace them - particularly those we use for energy. Without something, there will be no heaters in winter, air-conditioners or fans in summer, no gas/electricity for your morning cup of tea - you won't be able to chop down trees as in the past to build homes, because the Greens will stop that assuming there are any left after the view seekers, bush fire resisters and developers have all had their go. If you want your great grandchildren to enjoy those things then we do need to be looking for alternative resource sources - whatever they may be, solar, hydro, wind, nuclear.... All have pluses and minuses most of which amount to 'not in my backyard' or "I don't get a big enough rebate". So what then?

    All any of us can do is assess how much energy we use. Personally, I have a clothes dryer, its called a clothes line and it lives outside and doesn't use electricity, I have neither heating nor air-conditioners in my house, I confess to having a ceiling fan, oven, fridge, microwave and sundry other electrical goods and lighting all of which are turned off at the wall overnight and whenever I am not home. I have a car which I mostly use to go shopping and carry my kayak on weekends only. I travel by public transport to work or by bicycle at other times. My electricity bill shows I use less than half the average for a household such as mine. So I assume I, like may others, am doing my bit.

    But before I polish up my halo, what about the now repealed carbon tax? If anyone thinks that made even half the difference my own efforts make they are mistaken. Those who were subject to the tax simply passed it on to you and me and we paid it for them in higher prices, fees and charges for everything. They paid the tax , such as it was, to the Government and carried on doing precisely what they had always done. No change in practices at all. For the consumer however, it was a different story. People cut back on their use of electricity for example. The power companies sold less, made less profit so raised prices. So customers used less, paid more and round we went again. That is why when it was repealed there was little to refund. The main costs were not about the tax but more about the reduced usage and effect on the profit margins. Repealing the carbon tax has not and will not make any difference to 'climate change' given it not change big polluter behaviour in the first place.

    As for Mr Abbott and his direct action policies, I would rather we do all we can with the 'picking low hanging fruit' first before we start putting miners and power station workers out of work. Regardless of whether you accept climate change or not, we need to preserve things like water, food, power/energy sources, simply in order to preserve our current way of life. Surely that, if nothing else, is worth the boffins exploring.
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    2:21pm
    KSS - Your wise words should be chizelled in stone -
    for all the greenies of the future.
    Anonymous
    9th Dec 2014
    2:42pm
    Maybe everyone should just take a pill and pass away and leave the planet to nature.
    The countries with the worst air pollution are according to a recent report:

    1 Pakistan
    2 Qatar
    3 Afghanistan
    4 Bangladesh
    5 Iran
    6 Egypt
    7 Mongolia
    8 United Arab Emirates
    9 India
    10 Bahrain

    I would have thought China would have been up there in the first ten but apparently not but their air is shocking. I was in Singapore last year and that was bad enough for me with my eyes becoming very bloodshot after a few hours sightseeing.
    wally
    9th Dec 2014
    7:51pm
    Radish, China is a vast country and while their biggest cities would have a lot of pollution, there would be relatively little air pollution as you travelled away from the cities.
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    2:41pm
    Radish according to the 3 wise men at Germanwatch the 10 worst polluters are;

    Germany 19
    India 30
    Indonesia 34
    Brazil 36
    United States 43
    China 46
    Japan 50
    Korea 53
    Russian Federation 56
    Canada 58

    Listed in order as they appear on the CCPI 2014, indicated by the number. I think China and USA account for 38.45% of global CO2 emissions. That is to say energy-related emissions and emissions from deforestation. Australia is at 1.18% possibly because of our coal exports. I think we are penalised by other countries using our coal.
    Mar
    9th Dec 2014
    2:44pm
    Mr.Abbotts attitude to almost everything has certainly changed my mind about voting, not just climate change.
    Clee
    9th Dec 2014
    2:55pm
    Yes, "climate change" has been going on for millions of years, but the issue Is, I believe, the overall "change in the climate" that has been created by manmade endeavours, and THIS is why we need to find other ways to create energy.

    I seem to remember a TV program some weeks ago about Australia's loss of a massive Windfarm project that the Americans wanted to build here. They have been monumentally effective in other parts of the world, and would allow us to conserve our other resources as well as doing a great job towards slowing climate change.

    Unfortunately, the Coalition Government saw fit to cancel this project in favour of continuing to use our coal - this might help our mining industry in the short term, but what it does to our country in the long term is nothing short of criminal.

    Does anyone else get frustrated by the ineptitude and short-sightedness of Tony Abbot and Co.?
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    3:31pm
    Clee, I agree with you, but whilst there are people investing in coal etc and there is a lot of money to be made, the politicians will not upset them. The mining fraternity is very, VERY rich and calls a lot of shots. Few politicians are brave enough to upset them. I believe the USA has one of the most efficient solar energy systems in the world but the Gov will not give any incentives to set up here.

    Most of the profits from coal go out of Australia. Even Mdm. Rinehart has partners for business (Rio-Tinto and BHP.) so her mining profits are not all hers and do not stay in Australia. So why do our laws allow this?? Because our Gov. does not change the laws ans we vote for the Government.

    Yes, I get very angry Clee, very angry.
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    3:36pm
    Frustrated? Just a bit. ;) It's all about "balancing the budget" to the myopic.
    Luchar
    9th Dec 2014
    5:18pm
    Clee, regarding the "loss of a massive Windfarm project that the Americans wanted to build here," were the Americans going to cover the full cost of the windfarm, or were they, like all of the other promoters of windfarms, looking for the Australian government to provide tax-payer funded subsidies?
    KSS
    9th Dec 2014
    6:26pm
    Good questions Luchar, and where would the profits go?
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    1:36am
    Clee, I think your glasses are too rose tinted, too. Just like Jen's, I guess.
    See my comment there - things are more complex than you are led to believe.
    Pragmatist
    9th Dec 2014
    3:25pm
    To answer the question "Will Mr Abbott's attitude towards climate change affect my intentions when it comes to voting?" Yes, I will definitely vote for him.
    student
    9th Dec 2014
    3:35pm
    his attitude towards climate change, old people, young people, education, education and education will certainly effect the way I vote next time. I will NOT vote for him.
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    4:04pm
    And who is your alternative, student ?
    Alula
    9th Dec 2014
    5:46pm
    Student: Nor will I. Greens get my vote.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    5:58pm
    It doesn't really matter who we vote for, but it does say a lot about a person's values.
    Suddha
    9th Dec 2014
    3:42pm
    Spot on Margie. Its a load of rubbish. I do not think these so call climate change scientists have anything better to do. They will latch on to anything just to get more funding for their causes and see their jobs as very important. Hogwash.
    Gee Whiz
    9th Dec 2014
    3:46pm
    What rubbish. The people working for these fringe dwelling climate change organisations are funded by governments and earn huge salaries.

    It is in their own selfish interests to continue to blame Australia as a contributor to climate change. Our contribution is less than .001%. Compared to China, India ,and America. We are an infinitesimal contributor.

    Scare monger Al Gore made tens of millions of dollars going around the world first class frightening people about global warming. Another lie. The planets temperature has hardly changed in the last 16 years.

    But Gore did nothing personally to save energy, one of the so called contributors to global warming. It was discovered that the dozens of lights in his mansion burned twenty four hours a day seven days a week. Gore didn't even take his own advice.
    Anonymous
    9th Dec 2014
    4:30pm
    SPOTON couldn't said it better myself.
    Dukalook
    9th Dec 2014
    4:00pm
    It's pretty clear from some of the previous comments that opinions on this subject are influenced more by politics than real knowledge. We live in a huge, thinly populated country, which inherently entails high transport energy costs. Some of our biggest sources of emissions are made in adding value to our mineral resources, i.e. basic processing of raw minerals into metals or higher-value feedstock for further processing elsewhere. We bear the 'cost' of that in terms of greenhouse gas emissions but other countries, including the Europeans, reap the benefits. Of course we could always reduce our emissions dramatically by going nuclear. Wouldn't that cause the European greenies to swoon - not to mention their local cousins!
    unicorn
    9th Dec 2014
    4:32pm
    So called "Mr" Dick head Abbot hasn't got a c;ue & most on here don't seem to care all that is cared about is a chance to vie Libs V Labs as usual. Tony is against it & no matter what we think he doesn't give a damn he is so full of himself he just does not see any point.
    Luchar
    9th Dec 2014
    5:25pm
    unicorn, just because you hate Tony Abbott and use insulting language when referring to him, does not automatically mean that your criticism is correct. Some specifics would help your cause.
    wally
    9th Dec 2014
    7:56pm
    unicorn, the tone of your post is so one eyed that I think you should change your adopted name to Cyclops.
    dougie
    9th Dec 2014
    4:41pm
    Just set a standard (limit) to pollution by any company and a period to vary the operations of a company or person to live within that limit. If such limit is not achieved charge an immense fee that cannot be passed on to consumers. This will ensure compliance. Let those polluters who have made their fortunes by not looking to the positive side of pollution control pay from their excess profits to ensure that they reach this standard. We as taxpayers should not be financially responsible for those polluters shortcomings in planning and intervention. Let the polluters pay.
    jaybee
    9th Dec 2014
    5:12pm
    I'm rather amazed at the "opinion experts" on climate change who submit comments on this issue. Polls show that the majority of Australians think this government is wrong on climate change, the overwhelming % of the world's scientists with all the relevant research disagree with Abbott and his denying mates, 14 of the 15 hottest years on record occurred in the 21st century, our closest allies say Abbott is wrong,even the UK Conservative government blasted Abbott about his retrograde steps on climate change yet these “opinion experts” say Abbott is right and the rest of the world is wrong. The mantra that the scientists are doing it to protect their income is absolutely pathetic. Unfortunately, the consequences of you deniers being wrong is catastrophic.
    Next you’ll give us your “expert opinion” to tell us the 14 lies Abbott has told to date since the election are not lies, they’re “adjustments”. What is deeply disturbing and immensely disappointing to me is that I and many others now no longer have any trust in what was once an ethical and believable political party which our family identified with for decades.
    Jen
    9th Dec 2014
    5:18pm
    Well said jaybee. I agree.
    Luchar
    9th Dec 2014
    5:48pm
    Abbott spent three years telling the electorate that he would repeal the carbon tax and received overwhelming support at the 1913 elections. Let's see if Shorten, after doing all he could to prevent the repeal, goes to the next election promising to reintroduce the carbon tax.

    I hardly think that the Fairfax Ipsos poll finding that "6 out of 10 feel that the Direct Action policy is an inadequate response to the issue of global warming" qualifies as a reflection of the views of "the majority of Australians."

    Further, if science were determined by the views of the majority, we would not have moved on from the view that the sun was the centre of the universe.
    KSS
    9th Dec 2014
    6:32pm
    Or that the earth was flat!
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    2:25am
    Jaybee, you are missing one important thing when talking about opinion polls: the outcome of a poll very much depends on who is running it. You are referring to poll reported in the Age, conducted for European NGO's by Climate Action Network (CAN), and comments made by a climate change campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), who was formerly an adviser to Labor's Climate Change Minister Greg Combet. To me, that says it all. What did you expect? CAN and ACF will always find great support for their fantasies, no matter where the polling takes place.
    Let's have a look at slightly different poll, somewhat bigger; let's have a look at UN poll here: http://data.myworld2015.org/ . There is nice bar-chart there, too, if you just scroll the page little down.

    This poll, still running, has almost 7,000,000 respondents. Not from Australia - from all over the World. As someone described it: "... I found out about a poll gone either horribly wrong or totally predictably depending on your point of view. It’s a global poll done by the United Nations, with over six million responses from all over the planet, and guess what?
    The revealed truth is that of the sixteen choices given to people regarding what they think are the important issues in their lives, climate change is dead last. Not only that, but in every sub-category, by age, by sex, by education, by country grouping, it’s right down at the bottom of the list. NOBODY thinks it’s important."

    So I would like to "gently inform you that the rest of the world doesn’t buy that kind of alarmist hogwash for one minute...."
    Different poll, different results. What did you expect...
    miss aisle
    12th Dec 2014
    11:06am
    Interesting facts, BobK

    9th Dec 2014
    5:53pm
    I suggest anyone who believes this rubbish check Andrew Bolts blog - he suggests we should be recognised as number 1 in climate realism. The scientists are unable to explain why temperatures have not been rising over last 16 years - why the ozone layer is closing not widening, why polar ice is thickening not melting and so on - before we rush off to spend taxpayers money our politicians must be sure - the carbon tax was a fraud and the money generated wasted - cost jobs and made some elements of Australian workforce uncompetitive internationally. People who criticise PM Abbott misunderstand him - its not that he is a denier per se - its more about being cautious with other people (taxpayers money) - sadly for my 60 + years labor has shown time and time again to be economic vandals (and the greens are even worse).
    Mar
    9th Dec 2014
    6:01pm
    Spot on Jaybee. It's even more pathetic at all the backflips they are doing now,It confirms my belief that they just don't know that they don't know. They just went ahead doing what appeased their egos without considering or consulting what the people wanted. Totally contradictory to their pre-election promises.

    9th Dec 2014
    6:10pm
    Unicorn, the horn on your forehead is affecting your brains, might not have any, get rid of your hatred towards Mr. Abbot as your language is showing your lack of any class.
    Davymac
    9th Dec 2014
    7:38pm
    What a load of popycock. Why should we be forced to follow the pundits into god knows what in reducing a questionable global warming? How come our polution is so high? Cars are compelled to comply with european standards, while more are on the road, many use LPG and Diesel reportardly more environmental friendly. We no longer have so many log and Coal burning fires using the more environmentally friendly gas. Unlike many European, Chinese, Indian and Americans we do not have multitudes of factories spewing forth toxic fumes. (most of our industry has been sent offshore). More houses have Solar Panels and solar hot water. Trains run on Diesel and not coal. If we were honest our polution would prove to be half of that of 40 years ago. Our biggest pollution is the arrival of more and more people who place demands on limited resources. If we are one of the worst polluters in the world someone is lieing about us.
    wally
    9th Dec 2014
    8:31pm
    Reading a few old copies of Australian Geographic that dated from the 1990's, I found that a chap named Dr Tim Flannery was saying that Australia's population was out pacing the ability of Australia to support the growing population. He was talking about water resources . At that time he was making a lot more sense than he did later when was anointed as our "Climate Change Expert and Oracle."
    We had the old '50's notion of the "Australian Culture Cringe" whereby everything British was superior to what Australia could do in the eyes of the local pundits. Now a new generation of pundits are telling us (with even less justification than the earlier pundits) that we should heed and obey anything a United Nations busybody committee says about anything we do in Australia that displeases them. Even more worthy of contempt is the number of people applauding when Barrack Obama got up on his hind legs and told some Queensland Uni students about how awful his G 20 host was in scrapping the carbon tax and was ruining the Great Barrier Reef. Obama's remarks, like the UN's attempt to dictate how Australia does things from afar, deserve to be regarded as unwelcome meddling and must be treated accordingly.
    Or do these people think Australia, as a nation, should tug the national forelock at the whim of the United Nations the way they say Australia did as part of the British Empire?
    EELS
    10th Dec 2014
    12:34pm
    We are not one of the highest polluters. To make the argument seem more dire the vested interests always use the 'per capita' rider.
    We are a sparsely populated country with a huge land mass so using 'per capita' as a measurement is nonsense.
    particolor
    9th Dec 2014
    8:21pm
    Every since Tony dumped Julia's Carbon Tax I've noticed the Planet GETTING HOTTER ??
    particolor
    9th Dec 2014
    8:23pm
    PS ..With an Opening now to Halal Air Conditioners !!
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    8:30pm
    Parti, this article appeared in the Egypt Independent 7 Dec. 2014.

    Mostafa Rashed, Imam of Sydney mosque in Australia, made a religious edict saying wine is not banned in Islam.

    Rashed considers Quranic verses merely ban drunkenness, not the wine itself.

    In a talk show aired on the privately-owned Al-Tahrir TV channel on Friday, Rashed said that prophet sayings on banning of wine are weak, thus it’s not mandatory to follow them.

    “This is an edict that I am responsible for,” he said adding that a small amount of wine does not lead to drunkenness and that heaven includes rivers of wine.
    particolor
    9th Dec 2014
    8:45pm
    One of the Rivers of Wine flows into the Red Sea ! And the other into the Imam's Pocket !!
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    9:47pm
    I just thought it odd that it was not wine but alcohol which is haram? It's a bold move by Mostafa, but if it comes off he could be somewhat of a hero with a possible new book being released.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    3:10pm
    Frank and Missile !! If You want some Class A Reading ,You wont be able to sleep after it though ??..
    Go To.. Jihad Watch... Site.. Pleasant Reading !! ..
    So if Tony goes to Denmark for a Perve Around He had best take out Islamic Beheading Insurance first !!..

    So they let them in here under the guise of Refugees did they ??.. More like Open Day for kids at the Lolly Shop ??
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    3:15pm
    PS.. Read the Item on Islamic Gangs take over Neighbourhoods,
    Cant wait till that starts here !!
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    3:26pm
    PPS.. And for anyone else that goes there don't blame Me for Your Nightmares ! Somebody sent it to Me in an Email !! I was Horrified !!!...
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    3:27pm
    I'm one step ahead of you parti! Nice try though. It's just a trick to get me to vote Labor.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    3:45pm
    Frank !! Old Sausage !! It has nothing to do with Voting for anyone ??..
    Its just a World Wide Site for opening Peoples eyes about what is going on in world of Infidels !! He ! He !!
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    4:01pm
    Yeah he he he. Very interesting info. I have not seen that site before. I'm about 8 years younger than you, so I'm a little slower. :)
    It is interesting that Islamic extremists have killed 24,500 people since 911. They are not wavering in their resolve. A town like Young will be a catalyst for change I imagine.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    4:10pm
    A town like Young or Alice will not weary them ,by the look of it ??.. Isn't it Horrible ??.. Not much to look forward too ?? Where are those Countries Cops and Army ???
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    4:35pm
    Forget Global Warming. The next federal election will be held in the uplifting atmosphere of spring. It will not be based on how many solar panels we procured for developing nations. The real issue will be security at home and abroad. This next election will be a very real test of our patriotism.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    5:17pm
    Or learn to Duck !!
    edly
    9th Dec 2014
    9:11pm
    Just love the comments of the denialists against the weight of scientific opinion. Interesting that the Liberal's cousin in the UK has accepted that climate change a reality. Evidenced by The Rt Hon. the Lord Deben a conservative Member of the British House of Lords, formerly a Conservative Member of Parliament, and now Chairman of the British Committee on Climate Change has been critical of the attitude of the present Australian Government describing it as having a 'flat earth' attitude to climate change. Hey!! Even Abbott's hero Margaret Thatcher. who was shock horror a scientist, in 1990 called on the world to fight man-made global warming.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    9:29pm
    An insult from a Lord is the same as an insult from a bum in my book Ted.
    EELS
    10th Dec 2014
    12:38pm
    Margaret Thatcher was the first leader to warn of global warming - but also the first to see the flaws in the climate change orthodoxy.
    In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.
    Adrianus
    9th Dec 2014
    9:52pm
    Well I've just read all the comments, and nobody has convinced me that Tony Abbott is not the hero we need in this country. My God, where would we be without a man of his courage and integrity??
    particolor
    9th Dec 2014
    9:58pm
    The Mind Boggles ??
    Tom Tank
    9th Dec 2014
    10:32pm
    The problem is that Abbott doesn't know the meaning of Integrity and his record as P.M. proves that.
    miss aisle
    9th Dec 2014
    11:12pm
    Yes, I'd also say, he's the best we've got.
    To cop all that criticism from all directions, take it on the chin,
    & STILL keep trying to be flexible;
    I think he has courage & humility.
    Shorten would never be able to carry all that on his shoulders &
    with that much (yes Frank) integrity.
    Jen
    10th Dec 2014
    8:10am
    There must be two, quite different, meanings of "integrity?" I only know one and Abbott, Pyne, Morrison and Hockey are the antithesis of integrity.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    9:39am
    Integrity.... HONEST ! ORIGINAL PERFECT STATE !.. Yeah Right ??
    miss aisle
    10th Dec 2014
    11:08am
    Nothing is perfect in this world, particolor,
    But, Tony Abbott is the best we've got.
    Kato
    10th Dec 2014
    11:55am
    Frank - miss aisle . The dementia blog is on another page.
    EELS
    10th Dec 2014
    12:40pm
    Count me with Frank & miss aisle then Kato!
    miss aisle
    11th Dec 2014
    12:13am
    People unable to handle the truth
    or come up with intelligent answers
    have to resort to stupid comments, don't they kato ?
    Reeper
    9th Dec 2014
    10:41pm
    Jeez! Can't you see this is another of those reports by organisations with 'vested' interest in gaining funding. The Carbon Tax was never intended to reduce Australia's input to 'global warming', it was a sneaky way to fund the fiscal disaster Mr Swan and Rudd/Gillard/Rudd created when they spent billions of dollars to buy votes.
    Paulodapotter
    10th Dec 2014
    1:18am
    Of course the coal lobby has no vested interest in getting rid of the carbon price, have they Reeper?
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    2:33am
    Paulodapotter, wasn't it them who got actually compensated for Carbon Tax by Gillard?
    Jen
    10th Dec 2014
    8:12am
    Reeper, the carbon tax could have done both. But not now! Easier to rip off pensioners and not worry about future generations.
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    10:16am
    Jen, say, ever since I started working, my salary increased regularly every single year by 3%. This year, my boss says that he would have kept that increase, but because previous manager borrowed too much money, company has to pay too much in interest, and he has to limit my increase to 2.5% this year, otherwise he would need to borrow more money.

    Now, in your opinion, I am being ripped-off, and my boss is not worrying about future generations. That's also Green-Labor line, as we all know.

    In my opinion, exactly BECAUSE HE CARES about future generations, he does not want to increase our debt by borrowing more money to pay my increase. And, again in my opinion, I am not being ripped off - over the years I just got used too much to the regular increase, for which I don't produce anything anyway, since my role in this big company called Australia is to be a "pensioner". I am just getting free money that someone else, like my sons and your daughters, had to pay in tax.

    You may not know, that we are currently paying just over $1,000,000,000 in interest (please note: JUST in interest) on our loans every single month. That is one modern hospital thrown away, every month - and the tragedy is, that even after paying back all that money, our total debt of $300,000,000,000 does not decrease by one single cent. Time will come, sooner or later, to repay all of it. With budget deficits that Labor left behind, it looks like your and my children will need to repay what Labor borrowed in your and my name.

    For Green/Labor aliance, that's business as usual. Tell me, who ripped us off.
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    10:39am
    That was very well explained Bob!
    What I find difficult to understand also, is that people like Jen want us to borrow more money to give to other countries so that we can move up this ccpi list one or two places closer to those same countries???? I am really struggling with this concept. There has to be more to it??? Surely People cannot let their ideology override their grasp on reality to that extent??
    miss aisle
    10th Dec 2014
    11:36am
    Excellent post, BobK

    10th Dec 2014
    12:37am
    Oh Get Real
    we are a raw material exporter.
    Of course our emissions are high.

    What do the Greenie idiots want. Either we reduce exports or grow our population by another 200 million to get our per capita stats down.
    Bloody idiot greenies have no common sense
    Paulodapotter
    10th Dec 2014
    1:16am
    I don't think you are very rational, but then again you may have a disability, Solomon. One eye perhaps?
    Adrianus
    11th Dec 2014
    9:17am
    They want a lot of our industry closed down ASAP. They will throw money back at those failing businesses if it looks too bad for them. e.g. Whyalla paid $600m in returned taxes.
    unicorn
    10th Dec 2014
    7:27am
    The original question was will Mr Abbott's attitude towards climate change effect your intentions when it comes to voting? Yet when I give my thoughts I am criticized by hge people who are do one eyed they are more like the Cyclops they blame me for being like. The only thing I was trying to say was 1} I am sick of Tony Abbott's attitude to life and 2} He has no integrity as was claimed he has broken every promise bar 1 and that was the topic here. Further to that the ones he is least likely to help in any way are the poor etc., Refuses help with doctor's accounts refuses help,building or maintaining hospitals, roads, rails, schools etc etc., even accepts free education for one of his daughters. The man most likely to be given enough each week to be able to afford to send 10 kids to university.
    Jen
    10th Dec 2014
    8:03am
    I would never have voted for this horrible man in the first place. He speaks about the opposition blocking his every move. That's exactly what he did in opposition. But he can't hack it now. He thinks bullying is the way forward. He knows no other way. He thinks there's a rule for him and an entirely different one for other Australians. He has a born to rule (at any cost) mentality. He's sneaky, a compulsive liar, has no original thought whatsoever, and is downright dangerous. Just look at the power he's just given to that evil Scott Morrison. They should all be locked up for crimes against Australia. And history will see them for what they are. The worst, most damaging, most recessive government ever.
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    10:26am
    Interesting. I bet the only print you read is the Guardian and Fairfax, and pepper it up with watching ABC. Watch out, real life is passing you by.
    miss aisle
    10th Dec 2014
    11:31am
    You obviously do not know the meaning of the word "bully", Jen.

    Tony Abbott, compared to almost everyone, is anything but.

    Do you honestly think he is the only Australian politician
    who has changed his mind several times ?
    Or do you block out anything contraversial from the left?

    You have a very slanted view of the truth, Jen.
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    12:13pm
    Jen, I thought Gillard passed more bills through parliament then any other Labor leader in history? Now you want us to believe that is not the case?
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    3:53pm
    I think She walked away with more Bills than She Passed !!
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    4:28pm
    The butler had passed more bills. He could flick pass better than Benji Marshall.
    Jen
    12th Dec 2014
    11:53am
    Dear Frank, Miss Aisle and BobK. Have you not yet noticed how our country is going down the gurgler? After coming through the GFC better than almost every country in the world. Check out some of the latest stats on unemployment for example. The doubling of debt in one year, for another example. I repeat, "The worst, most damaging, most recessive government ever."
    Adrianus
    12th Dec 2014
    12:14pm
    Jen, I have been aware the problem for over 5 years now. The Labor/Greens/Unions/Independent Government had no plan to fix it an increasingly have obviously became part of the problem.
    I expect a more aggressive approach by the Abbott government, but they need support not continual whinging and political spin. Maybe when Hockey releases MYEFO on Monday this government may get some patriotic support. But from where? Who else loves this country and it's people enough? Who among the whingers will have the courage to stand up for Australia?!
    Jen
    12th Dec 2014
    1:57pm
    Yours and Miss Aisle's dismissive attitude to those who disagree with you by labelling them "whingers" and people who don't love Australia, is noted. It does nothing for your cause. I'm sorry if I believe we're all being sent down the drain, I have plenty of recent stats to back up why I believe this. And I'm sorry if I don't believe that this Government's ideology is making us stronger as a nation, because patently, it is not.
    Adrianus
    12th Dec 2014
    2:39pm
    Jen, what makes you think you are part of the problem? Unless you are a card carrier of the previous government? When you look at the previous government's greatest achievements you will understand why we are in this mess.
    This government has accomplished some significant results in strengthening Australia's economy. The Abbott Government is working well with other governments to close tax loopholes for individuals and corporations. The other side complained for 6 years about the problems (and each other) while this Government is taking action. There will be some significant bills put next year which will separate those who do not have the will. Jen, if you are a politician I plead that you let your conscience not your ideology rule, and not reject them because of their author.
    Wasaherebelieveitornot
    10th Dec 2014
    7:32am
    Australia and Canada are soft targets for any leftist organisation, they known we don't bite back. Bit like the Other UN reports crock of shit, tell the USA that things are getting warmer. This is just another rent a committee report. Bit disappointed that your life choices even posted such crap, when there are so many other important and life threatening issue out there, most leftist political incorrect so not game to go there. Like HALAL scam which is now threating out meat export sending more people to the wall, Winton drought issues, the big banks taking farms and selling to mine companies, the area has one of the highest suicide rates in Australia
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    9:33am
    Thanks for the Tip !! We will HALAL the Bank and the Mines !!
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    10:42am
    Wasa, this is up there with the HALAL, UNION and Bob Foster's weight watching tablets.
    miss aisle
    10th Dec 2014
    11:18am
    If we don't get our priorities in order now,
    in the future, we'll be struggling just to survive,
    let alone be concerned about the climate change.
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    12:02pm
    The 11,000 delegates visiting Lima will leave a very large carbon footprint on Peru. The organisers had requested a parking lot for pushbikes which was dutifully provided however on any given day only 40 pushbikes could be seen in the lot. The remainder of the attendees sit in traffic for 1 hour to travel the 10klms. Japan kindly donated 120 electric cars. Apparently all the electricity supplied is by diesel generators. Organisers say the 3 big forests will offset the carbon footprint.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    2:45pm
    Peru will look like Bigfoot just walked through it ??
    wally
    11th Dec 2014
    11:37am
    At least the Peruvians will not need to go farther than Lima for their fertilizer needs with all the bull manure the delegates at the climate conference will leave behind.
    dougie
    10th Dec 2014
    8:40am
    I have my grandfathers diaries dating back to the late 1890s and onward and as a farmer he took daily temperature readings as well as rainfall and other pertinent readings for a farmer of his time. They really do make interesting comparisons to the current data.
    wally
    10th Dec 2014
    11:20am
    This is interesting. Were you able to find anything he wrote down that would suggest that climate and weather patterns today are any different from when he was recording the items you mentioned?
    dougie
    10th Dec 2014
    11:31am
    Wally really no. In his often writ words it was: bloody hot - bloody dry - bloody wet and bloody cold. In his time he suffered from the same droughts - floods and hot and cold periods which appear to be cyclic in their occurrence, just as it is now.
    Howver some of his other comments are worth reading - selling fat lambs for 6 pence each (good price} charged 4pounds to install electric lights in four rooms and a single power point in the kitchen (daylight robbery}. Oh what a difference time makes to life.
    miss aisle
    10th Dec 2014
    11:33am
    I'm sure many would be interested in the content of your grandfather's diaries.
    dougie
    10th Dec 2014
    1:26pm
    Thank you miss aisle yes they do contain much history of the district and much information of a general note. These were written more as a journal than a diary and in the near future they will be offered to the Mitchell Library for historical purposes.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    2:34pm
    Dougie ? Did You see Bloody Global Warming mentioned anywhere in Pops Diaries ??
    dougie
    10th Dec 2014
    3:27pm
    Nope! He was a very wise man.

    The prime piece of information that everyone misses is " Dirtiest nation per capita". Our population say at 30 million must produce more per capita than say India or China with their billions of population. Accordingly small nations such as Fiji or Vanuatu with their smaller population would produce much less global warming.

    As so often said "Statistics - statistics and bloody lies". Look at the wider subject not at some jingoistic information put forward by those with a barrow to push.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    3:39pm
    That Barrow is full of CASH Ill have You know !! Heading straight to their Money Bin !!
    miss aisle
    11th Dec 2014
    10:26am
    Dougie, Your grandfather's journals are priceless.
    So much information about life in general, during that era.
    The rainfalls, temperatures, etc. -
    Daily gauges to compare with today, & tomorrow!
    Little did your grandfather realize
    the relevance of his writings
    while faithfully taking note of events.
    I love history - we can learn much from our forefathers.
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    10:26am
    Why should Australia be politically blackmailed into contributing big dollars to the Green Climate Fund for countries much higher on the CCPI list?
    Ny19
    10th Dec 2014
    12:07pm
    We have a choice to be a responsible country or a selfish country. Tony Abbott and his merry band of fools have decided we will be a selfish country. Shame Australia!
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    12:25pm
    OK, I think I understand a little more. We can be responsible or selfish. We cannot be both. But why do we give money to other countries who are already doing better than us on the list? We are running last, so that would include all the countries who pollute much more than we do. Wouldn't it?
    BobK
    10th Dec 2014
    1:33pm
    Rubiconda, you have a good heart and are generous, but I still agree with Frank.
    If you wish to contribute your own money, I am sure you will find a way to do it.
    I would rather the "merry band of fools" spend more money on repaying our real debt, instead of fighting that elusive and imaginary Climate monster.

    It may be too late, anyway. We have already gone through a good dozen of 'tipping points', and beyond each one of them the recovery was no longer possible - the last one was predicted by Penny Sacket, the Gillard's Chief Scientist, and passed less than a week ago - see http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/weve-got-5-years-to-save-world-says-australias-chief-scientist-professor-penny-sackett/story-e6frf7l6-1225806754392.
    So no need to hurry, all is lost anyway.
    Adrianus
    11th Dec 2014
    10:34am
    I'll wager if Labor were in government, they would have borrowed $1b for donation to the Green Climate Fund and we would have moved up 7 places on the CCPI. The champagne corks would be popping and all the greenie nutters would be able to sleep at night.
    wally
    11th Dec 2014
    12:18pm
    Robi, you mention the Green Climate fund that we are supposed to contribute to. That is if China and India are willing to "clean up their acts", reduce the pollution their industries produce (fat chance of that happening!) and donate money to help the "poor countries" cope better with climate change and global warming.
    Who are these Poor countries that are going to be recipients of this aid? What form will this aid take? Will the aid money be spent on air conditioners for the fat cats in these countries to install in their homes and offices?
    Please supply details and not just the sort of lefty airey fairie pronouncements that have become the trademark of the half baked waffle we get from the greenies and their stooges.
    Ny19
    10th Dec 2014
    12:09pm
    The sooner we kick the kids out of government and put the adults back in charge, the better.
    Adrianus
    10th Dec 2014
    1:08pm
    Robi, try to keep up. That slogan is at least 2 years old.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    3:20pm
    And has Whiskers and Mould on it ??
    wally
    11th Dec 2014
    11:40am
    Robi, your post is two years too late , out of date, and you are out of touch with reality.
    Paddles
    10th Dec 2014
    9:45pm
    "Climate change" used to be referred to as "global warming" until exhaustive studies showed that there had not been, in fact, any warming at all. With a discredited title, the doom sayers had to pursue another tack of "climate change"

    There is a vast body of evidence from archaeological, geological and anthropological findings that the "climate" has changed innumerable times over the centuries, so why should we follow the chicken littles of this world and incur costs that must be borne by all of us and future generations?

    Call me a denialist if you will but it is not so long ago that we had the dire prognostications of Tim Flannery (at $180K p.a.) that had us running out of potable water five or more years ago. The reality is that our dams are near to overflowing right now and, thankfully, Tim Flannery has been consigned to the wilderness while he devises some other bizarre theory of Armageddon.

    In short, I heartily endorse the PM's stance of refusing to join the hysteria that seems to be sweeping the rest of the world.
    Aloysius
    10th Dec 2014
    10:07pm
    Government is not in control of the climate and never will be.
    particolor
    10th Dec 2014
    10:20pm
    Peace now Aloysius !! Let them think they are fooling us ! It was a gift to their Secret Retirement Fund !!
    Anonymous
    11th Dec 2014
    5:37am
    Oh yes they were. The. Carbon tax solved climate change. But people like YOU voted labor out.
    Since the abolition of carbon tax, temperatures have increased by 0.5 degrees centaheight
    Adrianus
    11th Dec 2014
    7:51am
    And since the Labor Party introduced a 'Flood Tax' on the flood victims in Qld they have had no more floods. They have learned a valuable lesson.
    Aloysius
    11th Dec 2014
    2:45pm
    And England has had far more white Christmases since 2000 than it had in the previous 100 years. Same goes for most of Europe and North America. The polar ice caps are expanding and the climate alarmists want to bankrupt the country in a ridiculous attempt to change the climate. One volcano emits more greenhouse gases than all of mankind can in 100 years. And, greenhouse gases are 97% water so let's ban water!!
    particolor
    11th Dec 2014
    6:56pm
    Petrol.. 1.69 lt.
    FREE AIR ....

    11th Dec 2014
    3:25pm
    Great to see that the Fairfax/Age?SMH Global warming crusade (or is it Climate Change??) has stirred up such emotions among the chattering classes. To all you contributors - check whether the air temperature of the planet has actually increased in the last 17 years. The ocean temperature? Check the data for the last 10 years! Yes, we need to look after the planet, it is the only one we have. But be fooled, at your peril, by the Green vested interests determined to alarm you, for their own political gain. A bit of rational thinking would go a long way, on this issue!
    particolor
    11th Dec 2014
    7:04pm
    I just heard that there is 19 Million tons of Chucked Out Plastic in the Indian Ocean ??.
    That's Disgusting !!
    Adrianus
    12th Dec 2014
    5:22pm
    I recall the search for MH370 revealed more debris, lagan and derelict than I thought there was. Same can be said for all sorts of garbage floating in space around Earth. We could do with a clean up.
    particolor
    12th Dec 2014
    5:39pm
    I just finished reading that on the News Site Frank !! I think a Big Butterfly Net is in order ??
    pb tom
    12th Dec 2014
    11:53am
    I agree with Big Al.
    Whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer and the millenium bug ???
    pb Tom
    particolor
    12th Dec 2014
    4:30pm
    One disappeared up the other I think ??
    miss aisle
    12th Dec 2014
    8:20pm
    he he ! parti
    Adrianus
    13th Dec 2014
    1:18pm
    pb tom , I think the scientists want us to believe the Ozone hole has reduced in size because we earth people have acted as one and refused to wear underarm deodorant.
    particolor
    13th Dec 2014
    1:37pm
    And hit Loowy Da Fly with a Swatter instead of the Ole PEA BOU !!
    Pushkin2
    12th Dec 2014
    3:16pm
    A friend of mine is visiting his niece in Kiribati this Christmas. When he asked what would they would like him to bring them they replied "fresh fruit and vegetables" because rising sea levels over the past few years have made it almost impossible for them to grow their own.

    Food for thought.
    particolor
    12th Dec 2014
    4:33pm
    Is the Island Sinking or the Sea Rising ??
    Adrianus
    12th Dec 2014
    5:40pm
    About 25,000 years ago the sea level was a lot higher than it is today. New York would have been covered in ice. 14,000 years ago Tasmania was part of Victoria. 60,000 years ago the Chinese could canoe to Australia.
    Ocean levels rise and fall and it has nothing to do with financial mismanagement.
    particolor
    12th Dec 2014
    5:44pm
    But 200,000,000 might Syphon a few gallons of it off ??

    13th Dec 2014
    10:57pm
    I don't know what the stupid greenies Nd left wing loonies are worrying about.
    We NEED the Polar Ice Caps to melt.
    How else are we going to get enough drinking water for the ever increasing earth population.
    Water is H2O. The the more we drink the more Oxygen we release into the atmosphere.
    Them there's all tat coal we're consuming. Helping get rid of all the carbon is another big PLUS
    Things are getting better.
    And all no thanks to the Labor whingers
    particolor
    14th Dec 2014
    8:10am
    I have Coal Tar on toast now for breakfast ! Looks just like Vegemite !!
    Adrianus
    14th Dec 2014
    8:28am
    Solomon, I think the statement below from India's Javadekar is an insight into how well COP20 went and a prelude to COP21 in Paris next year. The drivers of these meetings appear to be under developed countries who are doing very well on the CCPI. They are after money from the industrialised nations. What they plan to do with this money is unclear but I suspect develop 'green industry'. Obama's seems to be walking away from his 'big shot' statement at the G20, where he pledged $3b and urged Australia to donate $1b.

    “We are disappointed,” said India’s Prakash Javadekar. “It is ridiculous. It is ridiculously low.” Javadekar said the pledges to the green climate fund amounted to backsliding. “We are upset that 2011, 2012, 2013 – three consecutive years – the developed world provided $10bn each year for climate action support to the developing world, but now they have reduced it. Now they are saying $10bn is for four years, so it is $2.5bn,” he said.

    The disappointment is put into context when you consider the target is not $10b per year but a massive $100b per year!
    As Thatcher once said, the trouble for the left is they soon run out of other people's money. Well it would seem that the other people are now much wiser.
    wally
    14th Dec 2014
    1:42pm
    Parti, the toast you mention is not bread, is it? My breakfast consists of bits of bitumen I melt down and put on my gum leaves! My doesn't taste like Vegemite, though.
    Bemused
    19th Dec 2014
    12:30pm
    I would be interested to know the identity and the background of these mysterious European Non-Government organisations who have conducted this so called survey.
    NOTE, that no names are given with the exception of a Mr Guy Ragen identified as a "climate change campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) ".
    Who is Guy Ragen, and what is the Australian Conservation Foundation, who organises it, who finances it and who runs it?
    Always question the real providence and background of names dropped and so called organisations with fancy names reduced to a bunch of capital letters.
    Australia is a high energy consumer because everyone in this country has access to unlimited electronic equipment. Not because of our massive industrial strength.
    Most of our heavy manufacturing industry has vanished, and is continuing to vanish.
    That leaves just us!
    Who wants to give up their refrigerators, home appliances, television sets, media players, heaters, fans, airconditioning, unrestricted lighting, telephones (both mobile and landline) and a host of re-chargeable battery powered gadgets including mobility devices for the infirm and the elderly .
    We have virtually unrestricted energy hungry transport for ourselves and our goods, and we have un-numbered shopping malls, pubs, clubs, office blocks and other commercial centres all well illuminated, airconditioned, refrigerated and equipped with lifts and travellaters.
    We travel about, as never before, in unrestrained motor vehicles, personal recreation boats, and in hugely energy consuming aircraft and oceab going ships.
    We expect hospitals to be equipped with efficient lighting and the most up to date electronic marvels.
    Go to any city or suburb at night and look at the energy being expended in illuminated signage, street lighting, and buildings ablaze with light and with no one inside. (claimed to be for security purposes). Blinking lights, winking lights, Xmas lights and traffic lights.
    Our school kids are no longer safe, or willing to walk to school, so vast numbers are driven there, or travel in energy consuming public transport vehicles. Many class rooms and assembly halls are now very well lit by artificial light and are airconditioned. Many schools are equipped with electronic teaching aids; all requiring, collectively, huge amounts of energy.
    Large numbers of the populations of the countries claimed to rate ahead of Australia do not have wide access to the unregulated use of energy that is enjoyed by most Australians.
    Which part of all this are we prepared to restrict or give up altogether?

    Carbon trading schemes are marvellous - for the rich - who can make heaps of money buying and selling these fictional commodities, while the base cost is borne by the ordinary consumers. We will no doubt complain piteously about the additional costs and deprivations to our living standards.

    The Carbon Tax in Australia was a deception from the outset. It was claimed by the supporters that it was a penalty imposed upon the top 400 evil polluters to encourage them to clean up their act.
    Look closely. The Act specifically allowed these so called evil entities to recover the cost from the consumers. Thus, it was no penalty at all on the evil ones. From the outset it was ruthlessly designed to increase the cost of energy to the consumer, to force the consumers to use less energy.
    Unfortunately, it also increased the cost of food goods production in Australia, and the cost of distribution, storage and marketing of consumer products.
    The major retailers could ease some of the cost of production by importing foodstuffs and other items, from countries that do not have a Carbon Tax. That imposed upon our Australian Producers, costs that rendered them uncompetitive with the rest of the World. They closed up ,or reduced their output and jobs went with them.
    A sad sideline to our Carbon Tax was that the 400 evil ones could avoid paying the Tax to the Australian Government by purchasing carbon credits from other countries (who did not have a carbon tax, but had been allocated carbon credits for their own use in raising capital). The money paid by the 400 evil ones to these other countries, was still permitted to be recovered from Australian Consumers!
    We were conned a treat!

    Other Western World Countries deal with it a little differently, France is almost all Nuclear, and makes money by re-processing spent nuclear rods from other countries Nuclear Power stations.
    Germany has opted for renewable energy sources, and is still experimenting with various alternatives. To help fund this, German consumers pay, on average, an additional premium equivalent to 8 cents Australian per kilowatt. Of course Germany has a great deal larger population, and a very much greater industrial base than Australia, so we would need to pay considerably more to fund the same level of research. Perhaps as high as 50 cents per Kilowatt on top of our present 25+ cents per Kilowatt (28+ cents per kilowatt under carbon tax)
    Which of us Australians will volunteer to contribute, or will not scream blue murder if compelled to pay it, as the Europeans are compelled
    Incidentally, The German energy people tried sequestration of Carbon Dioxide underground. It took 40% of the power generated to achieve this sequestration, requiring much greater energy consumption to make up the loss. They also found to their dismay,that the captured carbon dioxide could escape through ground faults and other geo-physical forces. In the event that actually occurred, only livestock died, but it was only good fortune that no people died. Almost a catastrophic disaster. Not only has Germany abandoned that idea, they have actually banned it by legislation.
    Rumour has it that we are still considering it! Good old Aussie idiocy!
    Despite all this, while population goes on increasing, energy demands will keep rising and we will continue to flounder around looking for easy solutions. A lot like those addicted to dieting.
    To be successful in saving the world, we must be prepared to limit our total World population, drastically revise our economic models, and just as drastically revise our personal energy demands. Oh, and yes, stop fiddling around with useless feel good politically acceptable solutions, that have a snowball's chance in hell of success.
    Good luck with that!

    Bemused


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles
    you might also be interested in...

    Retirement Planning

    When retirement planning becomes life planning it is a challenging, fun and fulfilling task.

    Age pension explained

    Anne explains whether you will qualify for an Age Pension and simplifies some of the more complex scenarios you may encounter dealing with Centrelink.

    Cruising

    Got the travel bug or need a break? Take a look at our latest Seniors travel discounts and deals.

    Meal Ideas

    Be inspired by our easy meal ideas. Search through hundreds of recipes to find the perfect one for any occasion.

    Trivia

    Have some fun and keep your mind active with our Daily Crossword, Trivia, Word Search and Sudoku Games.