Abbott climate plan reckless - Turnbull
From: AAP
February 08, 2010 1:28PM

FORMER opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull has savaged the coalition's direct action plan tocombat climate change as a "recipe for fiscal recklessness".
Giving his first parliamentary speech since losing the Liberal leadership in December, Mr Turnbull indicatedhe would cross the floor to vote with Labor when a vote was taken on the carbon pollution reductionscheme.

Mr Turnbull was scathing of the coalition's new direct-action policy which aims to provide financialincentives to industry for reducing carbon emissions.

"We all know ... that industry and businesses attended by an army of lobbyists are particularly persuasiveand all too effective at getting their sticky fingers into the taxpayer's pocket," he told Parliament."Having the Government pick projects for subsidy is a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale."And there will always be a temptation for projects to be selected for their political appeal."A handful of Liberal MPs, including treasury spokesman Joe Hockey, were present in the chamber duringMr Turnbull's speech.

The Government allowed Mr Turnbull an additional 10 minutes to complete his speech as other MPs,including climate change sceptic Wilson Tuckey, wandered into the lower house ahead of a maiden speechby first-time MP Kelly O'Dwyer.

Mr Turnbull said his strong and long-standing personal commitment to an emissions trading schemeprevented him from voting against the Government legislation.Mr Turnbull committed the Liberals to supporting the legislation before he was dumped in favour of TonyAbbott, who has since released an alternative climate change policy.Today, he urged Australia to have a climate change strategy in place before the next global talks in Mexicolater this year."Prudence demands that we act to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and do so in a way that isconsistent with, and promotes global action to do the same,'' he said.

"All of us here are accountable, not just to our constituents, but to the generations that will come after themand after us,'' he said, adding it was Parliament's job to legislate for the nation's long-term future.It was positive that both sides of Parliament had agreed to at least a five per cut in greenhouse gasemissions by 2020.

"But it is not enough to say that you support these cuts, you must also deliver a strong, credible policyframework that will deliver them.''

Without a strong climate change policy, Australia could not expect other countries, such as China and India,to heed the call to tackle global warming.

Abbott climate plan reckless - Turnbull | Herald Sun 9/08/13 3:56 PMhttp://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/coalition-climate-change-plan-reckless/story-e6frf7kf-1225827858360 Page 2 of 2

 

Irrespective of the inadequacy of the bipartisan emissions reduction target, the question is: why would the Coalition propose such a useless policy?

It is puzzling. The only serious possibility – incredible as it seems – is that, from the point of view of the Opposition, the policy is a non-answer to a non-existent problem. They recognize the political necessity for a climate change policy but actually don’t believe it is happening!

As blogger Alex White points out:

In addition to saying “climate change is crap“, in a more considered interview with the ABC’s Four Corners, Tony Abbott said:

“I have pointed out in the past that there was that high year a few years ago and the warming, if you believe various measuring organisations, hasn’t increased … the point is not the science, the point is how should government respond, and we have a credible response.”

If you don’t believe that global warming is real, then the “direct action” policy could be considered “credible”. An increasing number of Coalition front-benchers and senior back-benchers are climate denialists.

Senator Cory Bernardi, in between comparing same-sex marriage to bestiality, has declared climate change science to be “increasingly discredited”. Kevin Andrews has expressed doubts about the human factor in climate change. Almost all Tasmanian Liberal senators have expressed the same doubts — Stephen Parry, Guy Barnett, Eric Abetz and David Bushby. The ABC reportedthat former Liberal senator and Abbott mentor, Nick Minchin said “a majority [of Coalition MPs] don’t accept” that human activity is causing climate change.

It seems that Tony Abbott has taken as his main scientific advisor on climate change the discredited denialist Ian Plimer — a geologist by training. Abbott has ignored the advice of the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology — two leading climate research institutes — as well as theAustralian Academy of Science’s report on the science of climate change.’ It should be noted that in addition to Minchin Abbott has appointed as his industry spokesman former Chairman of the ABC Maurice Newman whose climate change denialism is on the public record and who regards wind power as a crime against the people.

As Guardian blogger and DeSmogBlog regular Graham Readfearn has noted, the DAP directly mirrors a plan developed by Alan Moran director of the Deregulation unit in the far right industry propaganda outfit the Institute of Public Affairs, a leading promoter of climate science denial and misrepresentation. The links between the secretive IPA and the Liberal Party are documented by the Climate Action Network in a 2010 report entitled ‘Doubting Australia: the roots of Australia’s climate denial’:

read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/tony-abbotts-direct-action-dud/

Tony Abbott will have to find at least another $4bn for his climate policy or else break his pledge to cut emissions by 5% by 2020 and instead allow them to increase by 9%, according to new modelling suggesting the Coalition's Direct Action plan cannot work.

The Coalition insists it will provide no more than the money it has allocated to buy emission reductions from polluters who voluntarily apply to its emissions reduction fund – $2.5bn over the next four years – and, according to figures in the original 2009 policy document, almost $5bn by 2020.

But a devastating analysis by the Climate Institute, based on modelling from Sinclair Knight Merz/MMA and Monash University's Centre of Policy Studies, found at least $4.07bn more would be required to meet the target.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/funding-gap-abbott-climate-plan

See toon and speech at top... 100% committed to the environment?... Another lie by turdy Tony...

 

 

Tony Abbott's warfare against action on climate change has started

Abbott's attempt to shut down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation proves that the government has no intention of taking meaningful action on climate change

 

 

 

Mark Dreyfus

theguardian.com

 

Despite repeated promises to the contrary, it is now becoming clear that the Abbott government has no intention of taking meaningful action on climate change.

The Coalition’s so-called Direct Action policy has always been a farce and a policy fig leaf to cover Tony Abbott’s belief that climate change science is, as he once described it, “crap” – a view shared by the hand-picked chair of his new Business Advisory Council, Maurice Newman, who recently declared that “anthropological” (as he described it) climate change was a “myth”.

No sooner had it taken office than the Abbott government, having apparently cast aside its Direct Action policy charade in favour of the diversion of a new white paper, set about wrecking the achievements and successes of the previous government in addressing Australia’s emissions.

The most graphic illustration of Abbott’s ideological warfare against action on climate change may not be the axing of the Climate Commission, but his attempt to shut down the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC).

The CEFC forms part of the suite of measures set up by the previous government to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by grasping the huge economic opportunities offered by the burgeoning clean energy sector.

With an eminent board and high-performing staff headed by former Macquarie Bank executive Oliver Yates, the CEFC possesses considerable financial nous and business experience, ranging across investments, portfolio management, finance, corporate treasury, legal, human resources, marketing and communications, risk management, governance, corporate affairs and government.

The market was quick to respond to it. In just its first two months of operation – since 1 July this year – the CEFC has been able to attract investment in new, clean energy projects worth $1.6bn, raising around $2.90 in private sector investment for every $1 of taxpayer funds invested. Thus far, the CEFC has committed investments of around $500m, with total project value of around $2bn.

The CEFC has been in active discussions with some 50 project proponents, and more than 100 others have expressed interest in CEFC finance. Projects include waste-to-energy plants, wind farms, bio-energy generation ventures, solar farms and low-energy street lighting investments for councils. If the CEFC is allowed to continue its work, these projects will be worth many billions of dollars to the Australian economy, and will create thousands of jobs.

And all this investment is occurring at minimal cost to taxpayers. The CEFC has no adverse impact on government net debt and its contracted investments are expected to earn an average return of around 7%, which is 4% above the government’s cost of funds.

Coalition claims that the CEFC is some kind of “green slush fund” suggest either a catastrophic lack of financial acumen, or a catastrophic lack of honesty. The CEFC will have a positive net contribution to the nation’s finances as a fund that invests money in clean energy projects for a positive return.

It is clear that Abbott’s primary concern about the CEFC is not that it has been unsuccessful in stimulating new business opportunities and jobs in the clean energy sector. Rather, it seems his concern may be that the CEFC has succeeded admirably. This success is anathema to a government that won office by disparaging the effectiveness of the government that it was seeking to replace. 

In stark contrast to the CEFC’s role as an investment vehicle to stimulate the clean energy industry in Australia, it is the Coalition’s Direct Action policy that proposes a slush-fund of taxpayers' money to be doled out without return – and not to new clean technology businesses, but rather, to existing big polluters.

Abbott now seems determined to ensure that good policies implemented over the past six years by Labor are torn down as fast as possible, regardless of their economic merit, regardless of the negative impact this might have on the jobs and businesses that have been created, and regardless of whether this tearing down is done in an appropriate legal manner – or not.

On this last point, it appears that Abbott has been in such a desperate rush to destroy the CEFC that he has sought to bypass the legal processes required to dismantle an independent statutory body. Independent statutory bodies such as the CEFC are created by legislation, and legislation is needed to dissolve them. Treasurer Joe Hockey has sought to get around the troublesome requirements of Australia’s laws and democratic processes by asking the Board of the CEFC to suspend its operations, placing the Board in the invidious position of potentially breaching its legal and contractual obligations.

The CEFC has already shown itself to be a financially sound and economically effective instrument for action on climate change. As a vehicle for jobs creation, innovation and new, clean energy industries, it ticks all the boxes. At the very least, the new government should recognise that the CEFC’s existence is not incompatible with its own claimed policy priorities under Direct Action.

If it persists with its ham-fisted attempts to shut down the CEFC, it will be clear not just that the government regards climate change as a myth, but that it is prepared to attack sound job creation and economic investment to pursue its blinkered ideological opposition to effective action on climate change. 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/26/climate-commission-abbott

 

It is about time that Malcolm cleans his hands of this Abbott government... Barely two weeks in and it's already a farce, a con job and a dangerous set-up. MALCOLM, THIS COUNTRY NEEDS YOU TO STOP ABBOTT BEFORE HE DOES TOO MUCH DAMAGE... If you don't then Malcolm you're a giant wavering turd.

 

 

Australia’s carbon price has been repealed, leaving the nation with no legislated policy to achieve even the minimum 5% greenhouse emissions reduction target it has inscribed in international agreements.

Tony Abbott told “the Australian people” via a media conference: “You voted to scrap the tax and today the parliament finally listened.”

The government said it would now achieve the 5% target through its as-yet-unlegislated Direct Action competitive grants policy, which the environment minister, Greg Hunt, insisted was a “policy for the long term”.

While the prime minister hailed the demise of the “useless, destructive [carbon] tax” and promised that the Coalition would “never do anything that damages the economy”, he repeatedly refused to rule out ever introducing a carbon price in the future.

The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said Labor’s climate policy for the next election would include an emissions trading scheme and accused Abbott of “sleepwalking Australia towards an environmental and economic disaster”.

Setting up renewed bitter debate over climate policy, Shorten said the Labor party would not support Direct Action, which was a “boondoggle” constructed for “internet trolls … and right-wing shock jocks”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/17/tony-abbott-hails-demise-of-useless-destructive-carbon-tax

-----------------------------------------

See toon at top and articles below it. See also  guilty poles and wires...

and 

 

the carbon tax works...

 

 

on global warming...

 

 

shivers down the spine...

 

 

 

Direct Action is a "Mickey Mouse" scheme that falls short of the "real leadership" needed to tackle climate change, a former adviser to John Howard says. 

The president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Geoff Cousins, has slammed the Abbott government's Direct Action policy, which was approved by the Senate last week, following a surprise deal between the Coalition and the Palmer United Party. 

The program will set up a $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, designed to help Australia meet its emissions reduction target of 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. Through the fund, the government will provide incentives to businesses, households and landowners to reduce their emissions.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/direct-action-is-a-mickey-mouse-scheme-says-former-howard-adviser-20141102-11fn02.html#ixzz3HxywahM1

A surprise deal? Who writes this shit? Guess what? Gus predicted that Palmer would make a deal with Turdy Tony on the "direct action"...  Now this was no surprise... Palmer works with Turdy Tony to make us swallow shit — slowly but surely...  See toon at top...

 

read also: trickster, con-artist, liar, switcharoola-man theatrics...

 

The first thing any student of basic economics learns is that a free market is the most efficient method to allocate resources. And this is where Direct Action gets it all wrong, writes Ian Verrender.

It was a throwaway line over lunch.

Back when the Coalition was in opposition, a former senior party adviser, chortling at the incongruous nature of the fight over climate change, couldn't help himself.

"You know what the main difference is between us?" he asked. "The (Labor) government wants to take money from polluters and give it to taxpayers while the Coalition wants to take money from taxpayers and give it to polluters."

If it wasn't so serious, it'd be hilarious.

For the past five years, the great philosophical debate around climate change has been fought over the science and, in particular, whether human involvement plays a role.

Given both major parties have signed up to reduce greenhouse gas emissions - which by definition means both believe in human involvement in climate change - it was a totally unnecessary argument with the annoying spectacle of barely literate politicians disputing science.

But in all the smoke over the science, a fundamental economic principle has been swept under the table without so much as a peep, let alone a decent argument.

For at least the past 40 years and arguably for a good deal longer, Australian governments have embraced a free market ideology; that the economy should be driven by market forces rather than the heavy hand of government.

Last week's hard fought political victory for the government on its much vaunted Direct Action carbon policy effectively replaces a pricing mechanism with a subsidy, a strategy that carries enormous risk for the government, both political and economic.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-03/verrender-the-direct-action-assault-on-free-market-thinking/5861522

 

See image at top...

 

 

 

Indeed, the only concrete policy issue touched on on Monday night was to confirm the Abbott regime's whacky "Direct Action" climate policy. It looks like Malcolm has learned from his mistakes as it was his commitment to an emissions trading scheme (ETS) that allowed Abbott to take his job as opposition leader by one vote.

Advertisement

That is a slight worry – an early example of Liberal Party politics trumping policy from the get-go of his prime ministership. Analyse Turnbull's first public words as PM and they were as much about hosing down his party's right wing as promising the nation better government.

After all that the coalition has invested in demonising the pricing of carbon, it shouldn't be a surprise that an ETS won't be adopted any time soon – never mind that a much higher proportion of economists recommend carbon pricing than dentists use whatever that brand of toothpaste is.

That means those of us who pay income tax will continue to directly subsidise carbon polluters. You might call that a warped form of carbon tax.

In the never-never-land section of the climate change policy Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will take to Paris, there is indeed the opening for Australian carbon emitters to take part in an international ETS down the track – just don't tell broadcaster Alan Jones and friends.

The reality is that, in concrete, measurable terms, there is actually extremely little Australia can do to reduce global carbon emissions. As far as CO2 concentrations go, if we went totally sustainable overnight, the atmosphere would barely notice.

The only genuine difference Australia could hope to make is in policy leadership – dragging the rest of the world into action. But that can't be done from the back of the pack.

So the new Prime Minister's first leadership decision has been for Australia not to lead. Depending on who's spinning it, we're either in the middle of the pack or at the back. We're irrelevant to international policy.

There will be plenty of people happy with that – those who were sucked into the carbon tax chants, and especially those worrying souls who seem to view the climate change issue as a matter of conservative religious values: a belief that somehow God wouldn't do that to us and therefore the scientists must be wrong.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/energy/liberal-leadership-new-day-new-government--sort-of-20150915-gjn2mr.html#ixzz3lnEedyuj
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

See toon at top...