Australian government to dump their carbon tax and "green initiatives".

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Breotan**

So, apparently the new "conservative" government of Australia isn't buying everything Al Gore is selling.

Michael Bastasch wrote:Aussies buck environmentalists, fight to repeal global warming taxes

Australia’s new conservative government introduced legislation that would eliminate the carbon tax and cut funding to green energy in a series of aggressive moves to scale back the country’s environmental laws.

“We have said what we mean, and will do what we say. The carbon tax goes,” Prime Minister Abbott told Australian lawmakers. “Repealing the carbon tax should be the first economic reform of this parliament.”

The Liberal-National Party swept seats in September’s election in large part due to their opposition to the left-wing Labor Party’s imposition of a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. The unpopular tax was blamed for rising power bills and hurting economic growth. Abbott has touted his party’s bill to repeal the carbon tax as “our bill to reduce your bills.”

However, this is only a portion of the Abbott government’s agenda. The carbon tax repeal plan will also cut $435 million in Australian dollars funding to the country’s renewable energy bureaucracy, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA).

The move was met with hostility from environmental groups who believe that funding cuts will cause the country to fall behind in the global marketplace.

“The axing of $435 million from ARENA will starve research and development of clean energy in Australia, moving us to the back of the global race for clean tech,” said Tony Mohr, a campaigner for the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The Abbott government also bucked the most recent round of United Nations climate negotiations in Warsaw, Poland as the Australia’s environment minister and foreign minister will not be attending the meetings. The environment minister, Greg Hunt, has said that repealing the carbon tax will consume all his efforts in the coming months.

“Minister Hunt indicated a month ago at the Sustainable Business Australia forum that he will be fully engaged in repealing the carbon tax during the first two weeks of parliament,” a spokesman for Hunt told the Guardian.

Furthermore, Australia’s conservative coalition is also reconsidering international climate funding. The fund asks developed countries to give developing nations $100 billion per year by 2020. Australia has already kicked in $500,000 last year and $600 million for a precursor to the UN’s Green Climate Fund.

“The Green Climate Fund is currently in the design phase and Australia will consider its longer term involvement in the fund once its design has been further progressed,” said a spokeswoman for the Aussie foreign minister, Julie Bishop.

While Australia’s actions to roll back the green agenda have environmentalists kicking and screaming, the country received praise from Canada’s ruling party — that country rejected a carbon tax in 2008.

“The Australian Prime Minister’s decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message,” said Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Parliamentary Secretary Paul Calandra. “Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries, and electricity.”

“Greenhouse gas emissions are down since 2006, and we’ve created one million net new jobs since the recession and we have done this without penalizing Canadian families with a carbon tax,” Calandra added.

**Medium of Death**

Breotan wrote:
So, apparently the new "conservative" government of Australia isn't buying everything Al Gore is selling.

=Breotan wrote:
Australia isn't buying everything Al Gore is selling.

Breotan wrote:
buying everything Al Gore is selling.

Breotan wrote:
Al Gore is selling.

Breotan wrote:
Al Gore

**-Shrike-**

Medium of Death wrote:
Breotan wrote:
So, apparently the new "conservative" government of Australia isn't buying everything Al Gore is selling.

=Breotan wrote:
Australia isn't buying everything Al Gore is selling.

Breotan wrote:
buying everything Al Gore is selling.

Breotan wrote:
Al Gore is selling.

Breotan wrote:
Al Gore

I'm slightly confused, although the picture did make me laugh.

**Palindrome**

In other words anthropogenic climate change is a lie, just look at all the oil industry funded studies that show this to be true......as long as you don;t look at the actual science of course.

**juraigamer**

Yes, clearly nothing is changing at all around the world, so we don't believe a word you say, because our sponsors said not to.

**Frazzled**

Japan evidently is backing off too.

**Minx**

Frazzled wrote:
Japan evidently is backing off too.

They won't be able to stay below the set CO_2 limits since they had to switch to fossil fuels for most of the energy production after they shut down all of their nuclear plants after Fukushima.

**Frazzled**

Since Germany is doing the same it will be interesting to see how they fare as well.

**hotsauceman1**

Well the goo thing is no more glowing zombies in germany anymoe, those things put a real hamper on tourism

**Co'tor Shas**

Medium of Death wrote:
Breotan wrote:
So, apparently the new "conservative" government of Australia isn't buying everything Al Gore is selling.

=Breotan wrote:
Australia isn't buying everything Al Gore is selling.

Breotan wrote:
buying everything Al Gore is selling.

Breotan wrote:
Al Gore is selling.

Breotan wrote:
Al Gore

Real Go

**Minx**

Frazzled wrote:
Since Germany is doing the same it will be interesting to see how they fare as well.

Indeed, i wouldn't be surprised if they'll announce missing the set goals as well. The "switch" to eco-friendlier power generation is not really going along as fast and structured as i hoped and on top of that our chancellor Angela Merkel recently 'blocked' an EU plan on limiting emissions from new cars ...
.

**easysauce**

good, it was a feel good do nothing tax, plain and simple.

all of kyoto was too, more taxes does not mean less pollution.

**Medium of Death**

You must have missed the part about the tax funding green energy research.

So I'm sure Australia will be seeing a drop in energy bills after this evil tax is done away with? Did Canada?

My initial post was for the whole "Al Gore" thing. It's as if climate change is still regarded as a fringe issue. Perplexing.

**dementedwombat**

You can't no-sell global warming!

Nuclear power is the way of the future man. The best source of green energy is glowing green rocks.

Random fact, they don't actually glow green. They glow blue. Really pretty actually.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Advanced_Test_Reactor.jpg

**Alfndrate**

dementedwombat wrote:
You can't no-sell global warming!

Nuclear power is the way of the future man. The best source of green energy is glowing green rocks.

Random fact, they don't actually glow green. They glow blue. Really pretty actually.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Advanced_Test_Reactor.jpg

This is the second time I've heard this today...

**Minx**

dementedwombat wrote:
Random fact, they don't actually glow green. They glow blue. Really pretty actually.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Advanced_Test_Reactor.jpg

That's due to cherenkov radiation, i.e. stuff going faster than the speed of light in the current medium.

As for nuclear fission, that's just a dead end.

**chromedog**

Medium of Death wrote:
You must have missed the part about the tax funding green energy research.

They just slashed 1200 jobs from our main SCIENTIFIC research organisation. Science research doesn't happen under that party's rule.
They are ignorant of science and how it fits into their paradigm.

Abbot is just ignorant, though. And a wingnut.

**Yonan**

I'm pretty ashamed that so many voted for libs in this recent election - labor is dysfunctional too don't get me wrong, but not to the extent that they deny climate change and think science is evil, and that copper is fine for the internet for the future.

Senator Ludlam, a really switched on Green has lost (vote recounts ongoing iirc, problems there too..) his seat, the most knowledgeable politician on a range of important social issues such as online censorship, what to do about Julian Assange/wikileaks/snowden/manning and heaps more. Very sad. I've basically switched off all media covering my government now, too depressing.

**cadbren**

Palindrome wrote:
In other words anthropogenic climate change is a lie, just look at all the oil industry funded studies that show this to be true......as long as you don;t look at the actual science of course.

Or the green movement studies that "proove" this.

Here's a thought, for all the countries that believe this, in fact for all the people that believe this, what physical steps have been taken to reduce emmissions? Now I realise a lot of rules have been passed and a lot of money has changed hands, but how much industrial output has actually been reduced in the face of this imminent threat we supposedly face?
Should recreational use of vehicles be banned as it's unnecesary use of fossil fuels plus the energies required to manufacture purpose built recreational vehicles such as RVs, 4wds, combustion engine powered boats, jetskis, private planes, trail bikes etc.
Should entertainment reliant on electricity such as online gaming, xbox, karaoke be rationed to cut down power consumption?
Should hobbies that involve waste such as target shooting, paintball be rationed or banned?

At what point do the pro-AGW crowd want to impose limits to daily life in order to stop this supposed threat instead of just talking about carbon credits, taxes etc that have no effect on emmissions because I see no one actually reducing industrial output. The industries in question pay higher taxes for producing x number of greenhouses or however it's measured, but they keep on producing.

Given the zero impact on the environement these schemes have it makes sense for governments to stop hamstringing local industries and allowing them to use that money instead to fund R&D into more efficient systems.

**motyak**

It is embarrassing that the current leader of this country doesn't believe in climate change among other things, and as chromedog said is really just an ignorant person.

But what more do you expect? Somehow he got elected by pointing at boat people and going "BE SCARED OF THEM" and by pointing at labour and saying "they are doing it all wrong, they need to be stopped" and never quite getting into how what he was proposing (when there even was something that he was proposing) was better than their current policies.

**Snrub**

Yonan wrote:
I'm pretty ashamed that so many voted for libs in this recent election

Hey my conscience is clear. I voted for Palmer and his realistic dreams of Titanic 2.0 and Jurrasic Park: The Australian Story.

Spoiler:

**Palindrome**

cadbren wrote:

Or the green movement studies that "prove" this.

It's not the 'green movement' that proves (in the lay venacular) that anthropogenic climate change is real but actual scientific evidence. The Scientific consensus is very clear so unless there is some global conspiracy for some unknowable goal then there is little point is fabricating tree hugging bogey men, unless of course your goal is to muddy the waters and 'teach the controversy'.

Very little has been done to reduce CO 2 emissions for two main reasons. Firstly it costs money with little or no short term benefits (an anathema to politicians) and secondly it would mean moving away from fossil fuels, notably oil, the exploitation of which has become so deeply embedded in the economy as a whole that people seem to be ideologically opposed to the very notion of renewable energy.

Even if climate change is a completely natural phenomena (which is unlikely) then we still need to be pouring resources into sustainable and renewable sources of energy for the simple reason that fossil fuels are finite. They will just keep getting more and more expensive and eventually they will run out entirely. We would be wise to make a real effort to find sustainable replacements now.

**xruslanx**

It's a shame none of the major political parties in the UK have the balls to propose this. Even the tories are too busy hugging huskies to give two gaks about the average family's disposable income.

**insaniak**

Medium of Death wrote:

So I'm sure Australia will be seeing a drop in energy bills after this evil tax is done away with?

That's exactly what Abbott promised before the election.

Funnily enough, it wasn't until after the election that the power companies started saying Yeah... About that...'

**Bullockist**

Time to get on my tinfoil hat.

Personally, I'm happy the tax is going, but less happy that the ignorant wingnut is keeping the pork barrelling going by keeping the subsides.
I'm not happy with the slashing of science jobs, there is not enough R and D in this country.

I do take exception to (not that it has been said this thread) "the science is decided" as science is NEVER decided , is never finished, is never final, that's the best thing about science. My father is a chemist and every time he hears the phrase " the science is decided" he gets into a rage , I agree completely with the sentiment. There have been many many theories disproven over the years, and may there be many more.

My problem with the issue of climate change is this, climate is extremely complex involving many specialised disciplines , we do not know enough about the climate (just look at the short time we have been measuring the climate - 300 years is nothing) to categorically say that one thing is responsible for higher temperatures in the future. Climate has so many variables and things that affect it (a lot of it being regional), I really do not think we have a complete enough understanding of how climate operates on a basic level , let alone on an advanced level.

Climate scientist, anyone who calls themselves a climate scientist is a liar, there is no such thing as a climate scientist, as there are so many factors involved in climate that in order to become a climate scientist you would need to spend your whole career in university just to become qualified. Water currents, atmosphere, sun, wind, ,oceanography, geology, ice layers and add to that human influence of all those factors other than the sun and that's a hell of a lot of disciplines to cover.

**Grey Templar**

Indeed.

I think we may be responsible for speeding it up a little, but we didn't cause it. The earth is not a fragile little flower, it is rather robust. Our industry over the past couple centuries barely compares to what volcanoes have tossed up in the past. Single eruptions have caused worldwide famine in the past because of all the particles tossed in the atmosphere.

At worst we are talking an increase in the time between warming periods. Not creating one that never would have existed without us.

**purplefood**

I don't see the issue with energy saving initiatives...
From a purely financial point of view they make sense even if you don't think climate change is an issue that human can affect.

**Grey Templar**

Of course, but there could be other issues tied to them that aren't desirable(simply speaking in general terms here)

Unnecessary restrictions on businesses for one will be a bad idea in an economic downturn. best to have good ideas stand alone apart from bad ones.

You can also make the argument that trying to slow down global warming at this point is a futile endeavor at this point and energy would be best directed at dealing with its effects. Such as looking at alternatives to glaciers for storing water to keep the rivers flowing during the summer and fall to compensate for less snow pack. Some possibilities are large dams in mountain areas that can hold the water that falls during the winter in a reservoir that can be released during the dry seasons. Something that could hold water in the mountains if its frozen or liquid.

**Bullockist**

I do agree with the premise that the earth is not a fragile flower, although we were not alive at one point the earth had a 40% carbon dioxide level now it's around 0.4%, but that really doesn't matter because during the next cooling period humanity as we know it will pretty much change. Interestingly plants flourish at 4% carbon dioxide.

Cooling periods usually signal the end of dominant civilisations and bring on a renewal/destruction of human societies. What I'm talking about are the smaller periods ( in my opinion that last 300-400 years), I'd hate to think what a new ice age would do to human society. There also seems to be a smaller period of 30-40 years , taking this into account it is interesting to note that some science magazines in the 70s were running stories like "are we headed to a new ice age". However after all this it is important to realise such small time periods have no relevance to climate or the measure of climate changing - the time periods involved are just too short.

Too often people seem to regard climate as a static thing , it isn't, it all goes in cycles.

**Grey Templar**

We're adaptable enough to survive anything that isn't too drastic(only a couple years) At the speeds we're talking here we will barely notice it within our lifetimes. And really, it would need to be REALLY drastic for extinction to be even a remote possibility.

At worst we'd see the collapse of modern societies, but not extinction.