The Green Eyed Monster

Share

Hello,

Just a thought folks. I pose this argument on the flaw in the sustainability
argument. http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/01/un-sustainability-an-easier-sell-than-climate-change/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=un-sustainability-an-easier-sell-than-climate-change

Nothing is sustainable in nature because nature is ever changing. Nothing in nature stays the same. A flower that blooms eventually dies. It does not live forever. That goes for us too. Are the “pro sustainers” expecting us to believe we must preserve everything for ever?

If so they will have to work on the science to make sure that every human can live forever. Then maybe the sustainable argument may have legs. Or arms…or eyes…..or be a green eyed monster.

Michelle

 

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CARBON TRADING FIASCO by someone who should know – T.L. Cardwell

Share

To the Editor,
First I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle . I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
The Morning Bulletin.(Rockhampton)

I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at
the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide
emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and
renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions
Trading Scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the
election) about global pollution. Using Power Station
cooling towers for an example. The condensation
coming from those cooling towers is as pure as
that that comes out of any kettle.

Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named
man-made ‘carbon emissions’ which of course is
Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly
doing to our planet.

Frustration about the lies told about renewable
energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable
energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy
generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon
credit programme which is beyond comprehension.

And further frustration at some members of the
public who have not got a clue about thermal
Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting
ridiculous figures about something they clearly
have little or no knowledge of.

First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to
70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of
modern power station are 96% efficient and the
exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and
reheaters that heat the air and water before entering
the boilers.

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist
as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no
fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators
or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4%
lost is heat through boiler wall convection.

Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with
very little heat loss and can generate a massive
amount of energy for our needs. They can generate
power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per
kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.

The percentage cost of mining and freight is
very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total
generation cost and does NOT constitute a
major production cost.

As for being laughed out of the country, China
is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations
because they are the most efficient for bulk power
generation.

We have, like, the USA , coal-fired power
stations because we HAVE the raw materials
and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe
me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly
the reverse, they are very envious of our raw
materials and independence.

The major percentage of power in Europe and
U.K. is nuclear because they don’t have the
coal supply for the future.

Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet,
cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees
that it would be ideal. You don’t have to be a
genius to work that out. But there is only one
problem—It doesn’t exist.

Yes – there are wind and solar generators being
built all over the world but they only add a small
amount to the overall power demand.

The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts,
which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis
because it requires substantial forces of wind. And
for the same reason only generate when there is
sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends
where they are located but usually they only run for
45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum
capacity. They cannot be relied on for a ‘base load’
because they are too variable. And they certainly
could not be used for load control.

The peak load demand for electricity in Australia
is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small
part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric
System (the ultimate power Generation) because
it is only available when water is there from snow
melt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but it
costs to do that. (Long Story).

Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly
hydro-electric generation because of their high
amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind
generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is
only a small amount of total power generated.

Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts
(of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation much research has
been done over the decades and there are two types.

Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation
but in each case they cannot generate large amounts
of electricity.

Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed
but they would NEVER have the capability of
replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your
heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics
and look at the facts, – not going off with the fairies
(or some would say the extreme greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and
care very much about our planet. The difference
is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia
where everything can be made perfect by standing
around holding a banner and being a general pain
in the backside.

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous
this financial madness is that the government is
following. Do the simple maths and see for
yourselves.

According to the ‘believers’ the CO2 in air has
risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last
50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in
a clearer perspective;

If you had a room  3.7 x 3.7  x 2.1 metres
the area carbon dioxide would
occupy in that room would be .25 x .25 x ..17m
or the size of a large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1% of the world’s total carbon
Dioxide and the government wants to reduce
this by 20%t or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of
the world’s total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has
risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.

Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by …004%.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = …00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = …0000008%.

Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments
wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = ..00000016% effect per year they would have on
the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

That would equate to an area in the same room, as
the size of a small pin.

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology. Renewable Energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous it that?

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses.

T.L. Cardwell

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dear MHR – sent Wednesday 12 October 2011 to all Members of the House of …………..

Share

Dear MHR,

How many people in your electorate did you REPRESENT today?

You are very well aware that the majority of the people you are supposed to REPRESENT did not think that the “clean energy” package that you voted for today is in the national interest!

The people who voted for your party last year did so, having been told that there would not be a carbon tax under Ms Gillard’s government, so what have you done – you shamefully abandoned your constituents today. Surely you do not think that you will get re-elected, having so betrayed your supporters.

Self-interest is a very powerful motivator, but in this case it has been a very short-sighted view – shame on you!!!

Share
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hear, hear…..

Share

Yesterday’s disgraceful display can only be described as a sham of democracy. Those in the gallery shone as they delivered the truth to the misaligned minority government as they ushered in their age of darkness. As I listened to the radio I heard those triumphant individuals chant as one, delivering a light so bright that the Speaker blindly said…”it is a privilege to sit in the chamber” 

Mr. Speaker, it is clear you are ignorant of democracy so I shall write to you to inform you of your lapse of judgement. You have the opportunity to correct it for the record. Friends see my letter below…

Mr. Harry Jenkins MP

Federal Member for Scullin

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Mr. Harry Jenkins

PO Box 167

Mill Park Vic 3082

To Mr. Jenkins,

I am writing to inform you it is a right of every Australian to sit in the
gallery to witness their parliament at work.
It is a privilege for you to be elected as The Member for Scullin and the Speaker Of the House of Our Australian Parliament.

I direct you to state this in The House of Representatives to correct your statement in parliament from Wednesday October 12th 2011 for the record.  

Yours Sincerely,

Michelle Tesoriero

P.S. I think snail mail is making a comeback!

 

 

Share
Posted in Politics | 4 Comments

Hansard – Parliamentary Speech by Dr Dennis Jensen MP 20 September 2011

Share

Tuesday, 20 September 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SPEECH

Date Tuesday, 20 September 2011 Source House
Page 54 Proof No
Questioner Responder
Speaker Dr JENSEN Question No.

(Tangney) (NaN.NaN pm)

Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (12:33): I have been dreading
this moment since I first became interested in the
science of climate change and anthropogenic global
warming, and particularly since the Prime Minister
misled the Australian people by saying that there would
be no carbon tax under the government she led. As the
only PhD qualified scientist in this parliament, I have
watched with dismay as the local and international
scientific communities and our elected leaders have
taken a seemingly benign scientific theory and turned
it into a regulatory monolith designed to solve an
environmental misnomer. With a proper understanding
of the science, I believe we would not even be entering
into this carbon tax debate. To put it simply, the carbon
tax, with all its regulatory machinations, is built on
quicksand. Take away the dodgy science and the need
for a carbon tax becomes void. I do not accept the
premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not
accept that we are causing significant global warming
and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local
scientific affiliates.

On the subject of the science, I note that pre-eminent
19th century physicist Lord Kelvin said to physicists at
the British Association in 1900:

There is nothing new to be discovered in physics
now. All that remains is more and more precise
measurement.

Settled science indeed! Quoting ‘the science’ is the
same as appeals to ‘God says’ hundreds of years ago. It
is an attempt to stop debate. When I hear the likes of the
member for Sydney invoking ‘the science’, as she did
in her utterly unsupported claim that the Central Coast
will be the area of New South Wales hardest hit by sea
level rise resulting from AGW, I look for the snake oil.

Science does not work the way that those opposite
believe or would have us believe. It is strange how
Al Gore, a failed student in science, is automatically
accorded reverential scientific status by those opposite
while they castigate the likes of Professors Bob Carter
and Ian Plimer, people well qualified to talk about
the science. I would happily debate the science with
any member opposite but I know they are too gutless
to take me on. I will take the likes of Al Gore and
Tim Flannery seriously when they live the emissions-

austere lifestyles they advocate for everyone else,
rather than the emissions-profligate lifestyles they
themselves hypocritically live.

Still on the subject of the science, have a look at the
data for Darwin. If you look at the raw data from the
last 110 years, it shows that temperatures have gone
down by 0.7 degrees per century. Funnily enough,
after ‘homogenisation’ by the CSIRO and Bureau of
Meteorology, the data magically shows an increase of

1.2 degrees per century. You wonder why I call for a
royal commission!
A whole lot of the argument for a carbon tax is
premised on models, but models only have any
relevance if they have predictive capacity. The reality
is that this graph I am holding up shows the prediction
of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. All of their
ensemble models indicated that there should have been
an increase in temperatures this decade. This other
graph I am now holding up is the reality according
to the Hadley Climate Research Unit, the repository
of the IPCC’s data. Initially, the so-called ‘consensus
scientists’ rejected the theory that there has been no
temperature increase in the last decade. They are now
coming to the realisation that they have to deal with it,
so we get peer reviewed papers, papers that Al Gore
said did not exist, like: ‘Reconciling anthropogenic
climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008′
and ‘Trend analysis of satellite global temperature
data’. They both accept that there has been no
temperature increase this decade. The reconciling
paper suggests that maybe it is global dimming that has
caused the problem. The problem is they did not do
their literature survey. If they had had a look at global
aerosol climatology, they would have realised there has
been no change to the optical depth in the last 10 years.

Let us look at the models. ‘Tracking earth’s energy’,
by Kevin Trenberth—lead author with the IPCC,
second, third and fourth assessment reports, and
still a current lead author—says that we cannot
explain it. I have a chart here from Kevin Trenberth
showing a massive deficiency in the global net energy
budget. Also by Kevin Trenberth is ‘An imperative
for climate change planning: tracking earth’s global
energy’. Another: ‘On the observational determination
of climate sensitivity and its implications’ by preeminent
scientist, Richard Lindzen, found that the
feedbacks have been overstated. The paper on the

CHAMBER

Tuesday, 20 September 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

misdiagnosis of climate feedbacks and variations
found a large discrepancy between observed and
stimulated precipitation. I have numerous papers here
that I will seek to table.

On ocean temperature, the projections were all for
increased ocean temperatures. Since the launch of
the Argo network, what do we have? ‘Tracing the
upper ocean’s missing heat’ acknowledges there has
been no increase but in fact a decrease in ocean
temperature since 2003—they cannot explain it. The
‘Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal
changes’ accepts there has been a reduction in the
globe’s ocean temperatures. ‘On the decadal rates of
sea level change during the 20th century’, by Holgate,
found no acceleration of sea levels. Similarly, the paper
on the dynamic response of reef islands showed that
many of the islands in the Pacific have actually been
increasing in area. ‘Sea-level acceleration based on US
tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge
analyses’ shows there has been no acceleration—in
fact, a deceleration in sea-level rise. The conclusion
from the paper ‘Is there evidence yet of acceleration in
mean sea level rise around mainland Australia?’ is that,
no, there has not been acceleration.

What we see is that the peer reviewed science is not
anywhere near as solid as those opposite suggest. If
the science is settled, ask the scientists if they believe
we should stop funding the IPCC and anthropogenic
global warming science. Let us investigate some of the
science and assume that the IPCC models are correct.
Even if we reach the five per cent reduction—and
government figures show an increase from 580 million
tonnes to 620 million tonnes by 2020, an increase not a
decrease—then global average temperatures will only
be a few thousandths of a degree cooler than business
as usual. If we reach 50 per cent less CO2 emissions
than today in 2050 and hold that to 2100, the reduction
in global average temperatures will be less than one-
hundredth of a degree. No wonder the government
is trying to spin this policy as a clean energy bill,
as it patently does nothing to address the so-called
anthropogenic global warming problem. I thought that
was the point of the pain associated with this tax—
so a whole lot of pain for essentially no temperature
reduction.

The reality is that bankers and the like are rubbing their
hands in glee at the prospects of the billions, at least, to
be made in trading a commodity with no intrinsic value.
Even with this tax, most Australians will maintain their
current fossil fuel consumption and, more crucially,
Labor’s tax will have no effect on the big polluters
overseas. It should go without saying that any solutions
Australia considers for global warming must have real,
measurable impacts on reducing global temperatures.

But it seems this point has been lost in the rhetoric and
catchcry.

We must ask the fundamental questions: will the
carbon tax fulfil its purpose and energise other nations
to join us and cool the globe? If not, why are we
barrelling ahead? At this time of global economic
uncertainty, governments and public policymakers
around the world are focused on saving old jobs
and creating new jobs. Why then is the government
introducing job-killing legislation? The government’s
own modelling acknowledges that this scheme is not
of itself enough to reach the 2020 targets. To make up
the shortfall, Australian taxpayers will be spending an
estimated $3.5 billion a year by 2020 to buy foreign
carbon credits. By 2050, funding going overseas for
foreign carbon credits is expected to rise to $57 billion
per year—the government’s own figures.

Why are we paying any money overseas for carbon
credits? Even if you accept ‘the science’, there are
numerous other ways to tackle the issue, including
putting money into research and development—the
cheap end of the innovation pipeline. Funding for
advanced energy R&D will lead to a more energy
efficient future by making low-emission technologies
more accessible. If we can get sustainable energy to be
cheaper than fossil fuels then an economic imperative
will drive industry and big business. Copenhagen
showed us we cannot get a global approach to climate
change at this time. The big polluters of the world
—China, India and the US—just are not interested.
The Australian government are being completely
disingenuous, saying that only 500 or so companies
will pay—but then again they have a complete lack
of economic understanding; after all, they believe that
they can tax the mining industry into greater prosperity
and that instituting a carbon tax will drive green jobs.
Ask Spain and California how successful that has been.
If there are these wonderful opportunities waiting out
there, the reality is that industry would be doing it with
alacrity.

Further, in order to change behaviour, you need
alternatives to go to. In the case of electricity,
apart from nuclear we have nowhere to go. We are
already paying massive costs associated with a small
penetration from renewables. Germany, touted by the
government in terms of solar power, led the world
in putting up solar panels—€47 billion in subsidies.
Using IPCC models, the legacy of that bill will mean
a seven-hour delay in global climate change by 2100.
Regarding wind power, Denmark led the world in
embracing wind power, yet their wind industry is
almost completely dependent on taxpayer subsidies
and the Danes pay the highest electricity prices in
the world. When Cyclone Yasi hit Queensland, we
desperately needed power due to some of those

CHAMBER

Tuesday, 20 September 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Queensland power stations shutting down. Wind in
South Australia provided two megawatts out of an
installed capacity of 400—some success.

In terms of transportation there are similarly no
alternatives to fossil fuels at present. Indeed the
government’s scheme has a negative impact as it makes
public transport less competitive than private vehicles.
Trying to force carbon cuts instead of investing first in
research puts the cart ahead of the horse. Then there
is the whole issue of carbon leakage—that is, cement
and aluminium industries going overseas, killing our
industries, but still emitting carbon dioxide.

The PM backstabbed former Prime Minister Rudd.
Now she plans to backstab the Australian people,
not only with legislation she promised the Australian
people she would not introduce but also by adding
landmines to that legislation—with clauses such as
carbon credits being personal property—to make the
carbon tax harder to rescind. The Russians used
scorched earth against Napoleon and against the
Germans respectively when they invaded. This Prime
Minister plans to use scorched earth as well, not against
an invading enemy, but against the very people she
purports to represent. There should always be a get-outof-
jail clause in legislation. I ask those opposite this: if
the scientific view were to change to one of unanimity
that we were not causing a problem on the day after
this bill becomes law, what would you think of those
mines placed in the legislation then? We do not have
cars because we taxed flatulence from horses.

The fact is there are things in the environment we all
want—clean air, clean water, good food and reducing
birth rates. Look at the countries in the world with the
cleanest air, cleanest water, lowest birth rates and best
food. They share affluence. Why are we attempting to
make ourselves and the world less affluent?

We are promised most Australians will be
compensated for the impost of the carbon tax.
Calculating the impact of the carbon tax is hard enough,
but what happens when it becomes an ETS? You will
have an extremely volatile price. The government is
betting it will be around $30 a tonne but you can trade it
down to $15 a tonne. What happens if it comes in at $15
and you are compensating at $30? Hello, taxpayer, we
need some more money please for that compensation.
Alternatively, if you compensate for $15 and it comes
in at $30 or $45, the compensation will be totally
inadequate. More taxes will be needed to cover the
shortfalls.

The whole point of this carbon tax is to change
behaviour to reduce emissions, which means there
must be pain if we are to move from an efficient
industry to one that is less efficient. The simple fact

is that the Gillard government is being deliberately
disingenuous on this issue as they know full well
that they will never be able to compensate the people
adequately or economically when it becomes an ETS.
In the national interest it is time to move past the
politics of fear, such as, ‘You need to be heavily
taxed or the Great Barrier Reef or Kakadu gets
it!’ In conclusion, for all these and multiple other
reasons, the Gillard government should not pass this
legislation without the consent of Australians. Madam
Deputy Speaker Burke, I seek leave to table these peer
reviewed science reports.

Leave not granted.

Share
Posted in Politics, Science | Leave a comment

TWO WEEKS OF THUNDER – Letter to All SA Senators, Nick Xenophon & Chris Pyne

Share

To __________________________________________

Dear

I am writing this letter to you as a South Australian citizen, urging you not to pass the Labor government’s proposed ‘carbon’ tax.

Firstly, this government gave a very clear and unambiguous undertaking that they would not be introducing such a tax in this term of government. Suggestions that they might introduce a CO2 tax were met with derision by government ministers, and the Prime Minister herself clarified that no such tax would be introduced several days before the election. People voted on this basis. Businesses made decisions on this basis. This reversal of an explicit undertaking is a dagger to the heart of our democratic process, and one that will not be easily forgiven.

For many years I was very concerned about the problem of anthropogenic global warming. Then in recent years I actually read some of the science and looked at the political and bureaucratic processes within the IPCC that backed the doomsday claims. There are serious problems with the claims of impending doom and serious flaws in UN IPCC processes. You can make yourself easily acquainted with these problems with some simple Google searches if you have not done so already.

I have learned that a doubling of CO2 is postulated of itself to produce only very modest warming. The claims of dangerous warming rely utterly on the presumption that modest warming would be amplified by positive feedback from water vapour and clouds. This is at the heart of the matter, and to my surprise I realised that I had heard nothing of this at all from either the government or our public broadcaster. The question should have been all along – what is the accumulating evidence for this postulated positive water vapour feedback? (Where was our fearless ABC all these years?)

The answer to date to this central question of presumed amplification by water vapour is that there is no evidence of positive water vapour feedback. Computer-based climate models all expect to see the appearance of an upper tropospheric ‘hotspot’ as symptomatic of the amplification problem. There is no tropospheric hotspot to any level of significance as required by the models. What is more temperatures seem to have plateaued for a decade and the late 20th century temperature rise is well below that which the models had forecast even if CO2 emissions had been reduced. Instead emissions have risen dramatically. Could there be an inadequate understanding of the science in an immature discipline and a too-hasty rush to scientific ‘conclusions’ without proof?

The IPCC reports all say that actually there exists a ‘low level of scientific understanding’ of the role of the sun in earth’s climate. Also, for the role of clouds and aerosols. What an admission. Yet the summaries for policy makers, which is all most politicians would have time to read, all run away with the notion that the science is as good as settled. That is an unsupportable conclusion even by the IPCC’s own reports.

It is clear to me that if we are to have any policies at all on ‘global warming’, then they should be ‘no regrets’ policies which will be beneficial under any circumstances. Starting our own nuclear industry might fit that bill. Building more dams would also be another sensible option. Large scale adoption of wind and solar energy is a very regrettable policy. Such unreliable power sources must be backed by spinning stand-by from conventional sources and hence for this and other reasons of cost are very inefficient power sources and actually do little to replace conventional power. They will be monuments to government folly in future years. Right there in all our faces. Stop this folly right now.

The Australian Trade and Industry Alliance calculates that 90% of Australian businesses will be exposed to the full effect of the ‘carbon’ tax. What are consumers going to do when faced with uncompetitive Australian products? How can you compensate for that?

It is clear to me you will be voting to systematically dismantle Australia’s industrial base and send it overseas (perhaps to less energy-efficient producers). You will be vandalising our economy and sending vast sums of our national earnings to unaccountable overseas governments and other unaccountable entities. What is more, success in reducing our emissions (even to zero) will have no effect on global temperatures even if you accept the current range of computer-based climate models. Are you really willing to sacrifice Australian jobs for a zero return?

Do you realise that with the on-going global economic crisis, that the Labor Party will bear an enormous part of the blame for future economic difficulties? And rightly so.

Please be a true champion of Australia’s interests. Vote to defeat, or at least defer, the implementation of this politically, socially and economically destructive ‘carbon’ tax. It is time for a rethink of ALP policies before you destroy your voter base.

Yours sincerely,
Margaret C.
Tranmere 5073

Share
Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Hansard – Speech by Craig Kelly MP – 20 September 2011

Share

BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, 20 September 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 17

CHAMBER

SPEECH

Date Tuesday, 20 September 2011 Source House

Page 17 Proof Yes

Questioner Responder

Speaker Mr CRAIG KELLY Question No.

(Hughes) (NaN.NaN pm)

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:33): Here we are,

debating a bill that both the Prime Minister and the

Treasurer promised, on the eve of the last election, that

they would not introduce. What an absolute affront to

our democracy. As the Prime Minister has noted:

… the judgment of history comes sooner than we

expect.

I suggest that the Prime Minister should be careful

what she wishes for. When the vote on this bill comes

next month, anyone who sits on that side of the

chamber and says yes to introducing a tax that they

explicitly promised before the last election they would

not introduce, says yes to higher electricity prices, says

yes to placing Australian industry at a competitive

disadvantage—putting hundreds of thousands of jobs

at risk—and says yes to enriching foreign carbon

traders by sending billions of dollars offshore will

be remembered by history as trashing our democratic

principles.

Last Wednesday, 15 September, was the International

Day of Democracy. The preamble of the UN resolution

for that day states:

Democracy is a universal value based on the freely

expressed will of people to determine their own

political, economic, social and cultural systems …

The imposition of the world’s biggest carbon tax on this

economy is not the free will of the Australian people;

it is an assault on our democratic principles.

While everyone remembers that infamous misleading

statement, ‘There will be no carbon tax under a

government I lead’, for which history will forever

remember this Prime Minister, history should also

remember this Prime Minister for another, equally

misleading statement. She pledged not to introduce

carbon trading until a time ‘when the Australian

economy is ready and when the Australian people are

ready’. The Australian people are certainly not ready

for this big tax, having voted against it at an election,

and the Australian economy is not ready. Just look at

the results of the recent Sensis small business index

for September. It found that business confidence is

plummeting, with small business profitability falling

sharply during the quarter and now standing at record

lows. It also found that all key performance indicators

fell in the last quarter, and there has been a substantial

increase in the number of small businesses looking

to either close their doors or sell up. In this climate,

how can anyone come into this chamber and even

contemplate slugging this economy with the world’s

biggest carbon tax?

Back in high school, one of the books I studied was

George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. It painted a

frightening picture of a future in which an authoritarian

government maintained power through the systematic

use of propaganda and disinformation. Ultimately,

Orwell’s writings warn us about the fragility of

democracy. The parallels between Orwell’s Nineteen

Eighty-Four and the practices of those peddling this

carbon tax would have Orwell spinning in his grave.

In his novel, the ‘Ministry of Truth’ was the official

government department for telling lies to deceive the

population. The parallel with today is that we have

a Prime Minister who once stood up before this

parliament and proclaimed that ‘the Labor Party is the

party of truth-telling’. That is right: the same political

party that promised, in order to get itself elected,

that there would be no carbon tax and that is now

introducing one is the very same party that claims to be

the party of truth-telling.

In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the character Syme,

admiring the shrinking volume of a new dictionary,

says:

‘It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.’

Today, this government has destroyed the word

‘dioxide’. Every government spokesman corrupts the

language by referring to carbon pollution, which

creates the false impression that the carbon tax is

about preventing carbon pollution—that is, black

soot being emitted into the atmosphere. But the

theory of global warming is all about that clear,

odourless gas that makes plants grow: carbon dioxide.

According to this logic of carbon pollution, champagne

is just chardonnay infused with carbon pollution.

So, according to this government, if we want to

reduce our emissions of carbon pollution, we could

just drink chardonnay instead of champagne. I find

the repeated Orwellian chants of ‘carbon pollution’

and ‘big polluters’ both offensive and dangerous. In

Tuesday, 20 September 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 18

CHAMBER

truth, carbon pollution is black soot, also known

as particulate matter. Numerous recent studies have

found that these substances cause a variety of serious

diseases, including cancer, heart disease, diabetes and

asthma. For the Liverpool area of Sydney, which I

represent—where the local council will need to find

another $330,000 for electricity costs under this carbon

tax—statistics show that people aged between 16 and

24 have a 50 per cent greater chance of suffering

from asthma. This is most likely the result of true

carbon pollution through particulate matter from diesel

exhaust.

However, the government’s proposal for a carbon tax

—or, more correctly, for a tax on carbon dioxide—will

do nothing to address the very serious health concerns

associated with particulate matter. It will do nothing

to tackle the problem of diesel exhaust. In truth, if we

trained our guns on carbon dioxide, we would simply

weaken our economy, burdening it with higher costs

of producing electricity. By doing so we would in

fact weaken our ability to tackle real pollution that is

causing harm to human health today and that will cause

harm to human health for our next generation.

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four also gave us the

concept of ‘doublespeak’, language that deliberately

disguises, distorts or reverses the meaning of words.

If Orwell were alive today he might well have

used the term ‘greenspeak’. By using doublespeak or

‘greenspeak’, global warming has now morphed into

climate change. No less an authority than Professor

Phil Jones confirmed in a BBC interview that from

1995 to 2010 there was no statistically significant

warming and that since January 2010 there has in

fact been slight global cooling. So with no global

warming occurring since 1995 in the land of droughts

and flooding rains, we can always have a perpetual

war against climate change. Using doublespeak—or

greenspeak—taxing carbon dioxide emissions has now

become the mantra of ‘putting a price on carbon,’ as

this government simply refuses to tell the truth and use

the word ‘tax’. But if it looks like a tax, if it works

like a tax, if it puts prices up like a tax and if this

Labor-Greens government has anything to do with it,

you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a tax. And—

using doublespeak or greenspeak—attempts to control

global temperatures by forestalling global warming

is twisted into the often repeated Orwellian chant of

‘taking action on climate change’. The claim of taking

action of climate change implies that something is

actually being done that will achieve something to

reduce global temperatures, but that is simply a myth

that is being spun.

Firstly, even on this government’s own figures, under

this carbon tax, emissions of carbon dioxide will

actually increase. This carbon tax will do nothing to

change the temperature. It will do nothing to change

the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. The Orwellian

mantra of ‘taking action on climate change’ also implies

that this carbon tax will somehow stop the sea levels

from rising, the rise that has been occurring for the last

thousand years. But the truth is that this carbon tax will

have as much effect on sea levels as King Canute did

when he had his throne carried down to the seashore

and when the tide came in he commanded the waves

to advance no further. So what we have is a carbon tax

that is all pain for absolutely no environmental gain.

In Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four , the government

use memory holes to manipulate the past by rewriting

history and changing facts to fit the party doctrine—

and just look at the parallels today and at how past

scare campaigns of the preachers of global warming

have been sent down the memory hole. Remember

the prediction by the UN climate body that claimed

that, by 2010, the world would be flooded with 50

million climate refugees because of rising sea levels.

The science was certain, we were told, the time for

debate was over! So certain was this prediction, a

website affiliated with the UN even had a map showing

where these climate refugees would come from. But

with 2010 having come and gone, and without any

climate refugees—let alone the promised 50 million

—this map has now been sent down one of Orwell’s

memory holes and has been deleted from the World

Wide Web.

Then look at one of the other predictions: that climate

change had caused the endless drought. We had

Tim Flannery telling us, ‘Even the rain that falls

isn’t actually going to fill our dams and rivers.’ The

science was certain; the time for debate was over. So

government spent billions of dollars which have now

been wasted on useless and mothballed desalination

plants, money that should have been spent and invested

elsewhere on badly needed infrastructure. So now the

endless drought has ended and we have Lake Eyre

in Central Australia full, something that has only

happened three times in the last century.

Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four also warned us of

the psychological manipulation of institutionalised

brainwashing with the quote:

Who controls the past controls the future.

Look at the parallels today, with claims by a group

pedalling this carbon tax and trashing our democracy

under the name of the Australian Youth Climate

Coalition. Their website states:

… we want to be able to enjoy a stable climate similar

to that which our parents and grandparents enjoyed …

we need … a safe climate for our future.

Tuesday, 20 September 2011 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 19

CHAMBER

There is no such thing as a safe climate or a stable

climate. There has never been one in the past and there

will never be one in the future. Our grandparents never

enjoyed a safe or stable climate. Just look at some of the

facts and disasters from our history: between 1803 and

1992, at least 4,200 people in Australia died as a direct

result of heatwaves, including the 1895-96 heatwave,

which killed 437 people. As well as heatwaves, our

parents and grandparents and great-grandparents have

had to live with severe storms and floods. For example,

on 24 June in 1852, 89 people were drowned in a flood

in Gundagai; in March 1899, 410 people were killed

when Cyclone Mahina hit Bathurst Bay; in March 1934

another cyclone killed 99 people by creating a ninemetre

storm surge in northern Queensland; and, on

29 November 1934, torrential rain turned Melbourne’s

Yarra River into a raging torrent, leaving 35 dead, 250

injured and 3,000 homeless. As sure as night follows

day these heatwaves, floods and severe storms—these

unsafe and unstable climatic conditions of the past

—will simply continue to occur again in the future.

Whether or not Australia introduces a carbon tax will

make absolutely no difference.

Another misleading claim that we often hear is that this

carbon tax will build competitive industries. We simply

cannot build a competitive economy by generating

electricity with Chinese solar panels or by building

giant steel windmills while at the same time sending

Australian black coal off to China and India where it

is turned into low-cost electricity. Let us be clear: this

tax will place Australian industry at an internationally

competitive disadvantage. It will lower our standard of

living and it will reduce our ability to tackle many other

pressing environmental problems.

Next, we have the doublespeak or greenspeak of the

compensation. The compensation under this bill is

little more than a bribe funded by the government

borrowing another $4 billion, mainly from overseas.

The compensation will be marginal and it will be

temporary, but the damage from this carbon tax to the

economy will be permanent. If this tax is effective

it will act as a penalty. Once the tax gets high

enough, instead of using low-cost, efficient black

coal electricity, producers will change to hopelessly

inefficient Chinese solar panels or giant steel windmills

to produce electricity. When this happens and the tax

actually has the desired effect, there will simply be no

tax collected. So there will be no money to be put into

the pot to pay the compensation and so we will be stuck

with higher prices, but there will be no government

funds left to pay the ongoing compensation that will be

required.

And, finally, the world’s largest carbon tax is not

only the greatest act of economic vandalism and

trashing of our democracy since Federation; it will be

dwarfed into insignificance once the lunacy of carbon

trading starts. Under this nonsense, by 2050, we will

be sending $57 billion—that is right, $57 billion—

offshore to foreigners to buy pieces of paper called

carbon certificates. And, for just a few dollars more,

they might even put them in a decorative frame for us,

just to keep our lights on. If we calculate the constant

increase in the number of permits and their price from

$2.7 billion, it is not only $57 billion by 2050 but the

cost between 2020 and 2050 adds up to nearly $650

billion.

Finally, Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four , gave an apt

description of those supporting the government when

he described them as possessing:

… paralysing stupidity, a mass of imbecile enthusiasms

—one of those completely unquestioning, devoted

drudges on whom…the stability of the Party depended.

Those who support that bill show these parallels apply

equally today. (Time expired)

Share
Posted in Economics, Politics, Science | 1 Comment

RESPONSE from Craig Kelly MP – Against the Carbon Tax!

Share

From: Kelly, Craig (MP)
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: SAY NO TO CARBON TAX

Thanks Julia,

I will be voting against the carbon tax. Attached is a copy of my speech on the legislation for your reference.

Regards,
__________________________________________________

Craig Kelly
Federal Member for Hughes

Shop 1, 9 – 15 East Pde Sutherland NSW 2232
Phone: 9521 6262 Fax: 9545 0927

www.craigkelly.com.au

Share
Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

RESPONSE from Sen. Claire Moore

Share

From: “McDonald, Marya (Sen C. Moore)” <Marya.McDonald@aph.gov.au>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2011 1:35 PM
Subject: RE: The Proposed Carbon Dioxide Tax

Dear Mr G

Thank you for your email which Senator has asked me to reply to in her absence on Parliamentary duties. Thank you for drawing her attention to the Galileo Movement website which is not an peer reviewed scientific source but a website dedicated to convinced climate sceptics, some of whom are scientists who profess an interest in cutting edge research in climate science and others are not.

There is a Carbon price proposal put to the Parliament in the Clean Energy Bills which is likely carry on the numbers in support in both Houses, and Mr Abbott knows this too.  It is based on the same principles  and follows as the next logical proposal after the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation which had unprecedented media coverage, public debate, scientific and economic modelling  and was put to both Houses of the Parliament on three different occasions. The combined package of legislation was debated in the Senate for more than 40 hours in November 2010 alone. This was in addition to almost 14 hours of debate on the package earlier this year and a projected 29 hours in the current Parliament, TWO Senate inquiries in the last year, 13 committee reports on climate change, the Garnaut Review, the Green paper, the Treasury Modelling Australia’s Low Pollution Future, the White Paper and the release of Draft Legislation. Beyond that, materials were widely published and accessible in all forms of media, print, TV, radio and on-line, and have been subject to frequent, intense scrutiny and commentary as Australia’s ETS propositions have been modified to deal with farmer’s, power generators, manufacturing [particularly trade exposed] industries and alternative energy provider’s, as well as householder/consumer’s important objections and concerns.

Carbon pollution reduction as a factor in achieving a start on the complex process of rectifying what contribution humans have made to climate change (above and beyond natural climate cycles) was a promise taken to the 2007 election by the then Liberal PM John Howard and subsequently endorsed by the Rudd Government and the Turnbull led Liberals. The Gillard Government’s policy (like the Rudd‘s and the Howard and Turnbull-led Liberals) has always been abundantly clearly in favour of future carbon pollution reduction schemes. Given the unexpected result of a hung Parliament that relies on the Independents and Greens support so that ANY government could be formed at all, this now includes a fixed price per ton on carbon for major polluters and in time will become an Emissions Trading Scheme always favoured by PM Gillard, NOT a tax. Its five key planks are:

o             Polluters pay! Individual, home based and sound though individual domestic energy saving measures are, you cannot restrain large scale polluters who are only deterred from polluting practices by imposts against their profits.

o             The market picks winners, not the government, as per Tony Abbott’s plan.

o             Industry gets the investment certainty they are seeking, the lack of which they may have used as a way of avoiding voluntary pollution reduction as an act of environmental responsibility ie the market has NOT taken the lead of individual energy conservers nor the renewable energy sector and will not until the issue becomes an economic one.

o             Targeted stakeholders with special needs  and households with limited financial resources will receive assistance to help them with their household bills from every dollar that those polluters pay when they pass on a small margin of increased cost [arising from the Carbon tax on 500 big polluters].

o             The national economy undergoes significant transition and environmental improvement as we move to a clean energy future. Moreover Australia becomes another paradigm so that  those 90 States and nations already with an ETS or pollution mitigation measures (including America, China, Japan  and India) and renewable energy targets continue with them , and more countries get on board the process to reduce the damage we are doing to our grand children’s future.

More information can be gathered from the website

Clean energy future call centre (for general public)

ph: 1800 057 590

e: enquiries@cleanenergyfuture.gov.au

w: www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au

In the final analysis, voters always have the referendum of an election at which they can decide either to accept or reject any government on the basis either of a direct policy or a belief that a promise to rescind a policy of a previous government is in fact likely and credible. One example was the promise to “roll back” GST which of course never happened. We suspect that rescinding Carbon ‘Tax’ as a measure against big polluters and NOT a personal income tax measure will be another example of this, whatever Mr Abbott may claim now in the heat of the moment. This is because he will also have to roll back the package of compensation for pensioners, self funded retirees and low income households too, reduce the tax free threshold from $18,200 back to $6,000 so another million or more Australians have to return to paying tax again, as well as create investment uncertainty in the very large businesses who are the biggest political supporters of his future government.

Thank you for your interest in this vital matter which is of such concern to all stakeholders in the community.

Marya McDonald

Office of Senator Claire Moore

Senator for Queensland

PH 07 3252 7101/// Fax 07 3252 8957

email: marya.mcdonald@aph.gov.au

Share
Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

TWO WEEKS OF THUNDER – Letters to several Senators

Share

Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2011 4:45 PM
To: Furner, Mark (Senator); Hogg, John (Senator); Ludwig, Joe (Senator); McLucas, Jan (Senator); Moore, Claire (Senator)
Subject: The Proposed Carbon Dioxide Tax

Dear Senators of Queensland,

Although never before involved in politics, I am annoyed and worried about the lies, deliberate manipulations, deceptions, misrepresentations, omissions, evasions and myths exposed as the basis for the government’s proposed tax on carbon dioxide. We need to restore integrity.

I am alarmed by the rigging, subversion and destruction of climate science. This has recently been drawn to my attention. I now draw it to your attention. You will find it documented in sections 6 (Political Scam Exposed) and 1 (Scientific Untruths) of The Galileo Movement’s web site www.galileomovement.com.au.

People across the country are deeply upset, worried and angry at the government’s disregard for the people and our country.

Please stop or defer the carbon tax until an inquiry has been completed into the blatant rigging and dishonest manipulation of climate science; and until the global economy recovers; and until there is international support for any action on carbon dioxide. All the big producers have decided against taxing and against trading carbon dioxide ‘credits’: America, China, India, Brazil, Japan and Russia.

Please restore the integrity of the Australian Government. Please vote against the carbon dioxide tax.

Yours sincerely,

Paul G.
Yorkeys Knob, QLD 4878, Australia

Share
Posted in Economics, Politics, Science | Leave a comment