Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
The Green Hypocrites

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:44 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you'll find that, when it comes to the environment, the Greens' "nice sounding policies" are going to become a lot more urgent as climate change starts to affect our way of life and Australia is forced to make big sacrifices to catch up because it didn't put in the groundwork when it had the chance.

You know that ant and grasshopper parable that right-wingers seem to love? Under Tony Abbott, Australia is well and truly acting like a grasshopper right now, complete with a "storing food" policy in which no actual food is stored. We've got a hard, hard winter ahead.

Once again, the Greens are not supporting Direct Action because they (like most analysts) think it is ineffective. Can you explain why are they wrong?

Think about it this way: climate change is real. It should be a priority of any government. If the government puts forward an ineffective proposal, political parties concerned about the environment should reject it. This will force the government to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better solution. That is how our political system works; it is how stuff gets done. That doesn't make the Greens hypocrites, it makes them pragmatists.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
thebaldfacts 



Joined: 02 Aug 2007


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:00 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David,

As I made plainly clear, If you really believe in global warming, direct action is better than nothing.

That is your choice. Unless of course global warming is nothing more than a beat up, then yes, nothing is better than something.

Hypocrites indeed.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:09 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Supporting "direct action" is not better than nothing. Indeed, by allowing the government to say they're doing something when they're not, it sets the cause back significantly. Not sure why you don't get that.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/04/28/direct-inaction-nothing-much-green-in-hunts-white-paper/

Quote:
Direct inaction: nothing much green in Hunt's white paper
Bernard Keane

Apr 28 2014

Remarkably, the government’s “Direct Action” climate policy appears to become even worse with the release of Environment Minister Greg Hunt’s “white paper”.

Sneaked out the afternoon before an Anzac Day long weekend while the royals were in town, the white paper confirms what has been universally assumed — that Direct Action is a policy figleaf not intended to seriously make a difference to Australia’s carbon emissions. But after nine months in government, it had been expected that Hunt, having the benefit of public service resources and a consultation process initiated by a green paper (albeit one also sneaked out right before Christmas) would at least deliver a coherent policy.

Alas, no. While the white paper contains copious details of how the $2.55 billion fund — it was $3.2 billion in 2010, and $3 billion at the 2013 election — will deliver handouts to businesses, the critical “safeguard mechanism” designed to ensure that whatever carbon abatement is purchased by taxpayers isn’t offset by increases elsewhere in the economy remains vague, and looks more and more like a dead letter.

Hunt has refused to spell out how the safeguard mechanism will work, with the white paper promising only that “the Government will implement its policy objectives in the most efficient way possible” (a statement to be read with the invisible caveat “except for a carbon pricing mechanism”) and that “the Government will work with businesses to establish a flexible framework for complying with the safeguard in the unlikely event of baselines being exceeded”. But to ensure that this “unlikely” event is even less likely, the only detail Hunt has provided for the safeguard mechanism is to ensure that it is as difficult as possible to show that businesses might have increased their emissions and compel them to reduce them:

• The only firms subject to the safeguard mechanism will be those emitting more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2 a year — just 130 firms;

• The safeguard mechanism won’t kick in until mid-2015;

• The inaptly named “baseline” for the mechanism will be the highest emissions level the company has achieved in the last five years, not the lowest;

• No additional reporting requirements will be established to monitor the 130 firms;

• Businesses exceeding their “baseline” will be allowed to average their emissions over a number of years;

• There will be no financial penalties for exceeding the “baseline”; and

• The electricity sector, the biggest emitter of CO2, will be the subject of unspecified other arrangements.

Thus, what little we know of Hunt’s safeguard mechanism is that it assumes business won’t exceeded baselines, establishes plenty of conditions to allow them to exceed baselines without being found in breach, and if despite all that a business still somehow is found to have gone beyond its identified levels, there will be no financial consequences.

Perhaps Hunt can name and shame companies that are found in breach late on a Friday afternoon.

Such is Hunt’s generosity to business, the white paper even debates whether companies that fail to provide the level of abatement they have committed to in their applications for a handout under the Emissions Reduction Fund should be allowed to simply get away with it, instead settling on proposing they merely be required to buy excess credits (don’t call it a trading scheme) from other grant recipients that have produced more than they committed to. Nor does the white paper address one of the core problems of the entire policy, that the Emissions Reduction Fund will fund abatement projects that companies would have proceeded with anyway, in effect turning it into an industry assistance program with minimal impact on emissions.

Hunt continues to insist that his fund will easily achieve the minimal bipartisan goal of a 5% reduction in 2000 emissions by 2020, although no funding beyond forward estimates is guaranteed. He remains alone in purporting to believe that. In fact, the most likely sources of reductions in Australia’s overall emissions will continue to be the de facto carbon price imposed on consumers and businesses by the gouging of electricity companies under the guise of network infrastructure costs, and the Renewable Energy Target, assuming Hunt is successful in his desperate rearguard defence of the RET against the attacks of climate denialists within the government.

The only really positive aspect of this debacle is that at least we’re only wasting $2.55 billion on pretending this government believes climate change is real and Australia needs to address it.


And here's this surprisingly vicious piece by Malcolm Turnbull, written when Abbott first proposed a version of his discredited "direct action" scheme:

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit-20091207-kdmb.html

Quote:
It is not possible to criticise the new Coalition policy on climate change because it does not exist. Mr Abbott apparently knows what he is against, but not what he is for.

Second, as we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, its cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.

Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. After all, as Nick Minchin observed, in his view the majority of the Party Room do not believe in human caused global warming at all. I disagree with that assessment, but many people in the community will be excused for thinking the leadership ballot proved him right.


Hard to think of a more blatant example of hypocrisy than "direct action".

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
thebaldfacts 



Joined: 02 Aug 2007


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:36 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David,

Not sure why you don't get that this is the Govt. Policy that was put to the people at the election. This is the mandate they sought and received, abolish the carbon tax and replace it with direct action.

This is it. Direct action or nothing.

Being pragmatic means that you accept what is on offer, rather than take your ball and bat and go home.

They are hypocrites because they support no action over the only viable alternative that is open to them.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:54 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This is it. Direct action or nothing.


That is the case if Turnbull is right and Abbott truly intends to do nothing about climate change, in which case the only means of doing anything about climate change is to help get rid of Abbott ASAP by blocking his bills and making him even more of an international embarrassment than he already is. If Turnbull is wrong and Abbott is serious about climate change, then he will have to negotiate and come up with a more credible scheme. Win-win as far as I'm concerned.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
thebaldfacts 



Joined: 02 Aug 2007


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:09 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Whatever the political machinations of the Liberal Party, it makes no difference to the Greens hypocrisy.

Didn't Milne say this week that the temp raising by 4% means that the World can only sustain 1 billion people.

Guess they prefer to do nothing and wait for 6 billion people to die. It is this sort of nonsense that really makes them a laughing stock.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
1061 



Joined: 06 Sep 2013


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:12 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

But someone wrote it and if you wait a minute David will probably quote it so it must be true!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:05 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll take informative links over gut feeling any day, thanks.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Dr Pie 

Dr Pie


Joined: 08 Nov 2007


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:20 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

thebaldfacts wrote:


this is the Govt. Policy that was put to the people at the election. This is the mandate they sought and received, abolish the carbon tax and replace it with direct action.

This is it. Direct action or nothing.



The problem, my hairless and factless friend, is that direct action is nothing. It won't help the environment, it just bribes the polluters (with taxpayers' money) to make ineffectual token gestures. As a Green voter I would regard it as a betrayal if the Greens politicians encouraged voters to believe Abbott's lies about his non-existant climate policy.

_________________
Born and raised in Black and White
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:12 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The Greens want to pull us out of ANZUS and disconnect us from the US alliance. Plays well to the anti-US left but would leave us with our proverbial dicks hanging in the wind if any other major regional power decided to take Australian territory by force. They also want to enact a raft of unfunded and uncosted 'social programs'. The Greens and their supporters think that money doesn't flow from productive business and innovation but from taxing those who have and make money and redistributing it to those who don't produce.

The problem with Socialists is they always run out of other people's money to spend. The wealthy, be they individuals or businesses up and leave, the poor spend what they're given rather than using handouts to build wealth and then we're left with austerity and trying to rebuild a clapped out system.

On top of these issues, I personally take issue with their social justice oriented 'progessiveness' built on government intervention. Their nod to individual liberties come at too high a price in other areas for my liking and don't go far enough in others. So on every metric other than one or two liberty issues I find them abhorrent, so that'll be the last I say on the issue of the Greens. Trying to get me to love the Greens would be like convincing PtiD to join the Liberal Party.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:10 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Quote:
This is it. Direct action or nothing.


That is the case if Turnbull is right and Abbott truly intends to do nothing about climate change, in which case the only means of doing anything about climate change is to help get rid of Abbott ASAP by blocking his bills and making him even more of an international embarrassment than he already is. If Turnbull is wrong and Abbott is serious about climate change, then he will have to negotiate and come up with a more credible scheme. Win-win as far as I'm concerned.


Just keep in mind that Australia's contribution (in a total sense not per capita) is miniscule. 1.19% of total word wide CO2 production. Whether we have a carbon tax or not makes far call difference to the environment, if we reduced our production to zero it would make no difference to climate change.

Plating some trees will make at least as much difference as many of the so called green schemes that people were using to get carbon offsets against the tax.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:36 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

You are only 1 of 10-20 million Australian voting adults, right? Your vote means little on its own, but you still do it.

The same principle applies here. We can't control what China or the US do, but we can control what we as a country do. Beyond the issue of influencing others (we may not be able to influence the superpowers, but can wield some influence amongst fellow medium powers), it's just a matter of every little counting. Plus, the longer we leave it the more we'll have to catch up when China and the US get on board (as is slowly starting to happen now).

I'm no hardcore environmentalist, but putting some kind of effective carbon reduction scheme in place now just makes good economic sense.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
thebaldfacts 



Joined: 02 Aug 2007


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:26 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Dr Pie wrote:
thebaldfacts wrote:


this is the Govt. Policy that was put to the people at the election. This is the mandate they sought and received, abolish the carbon tax and replace it with direct action.

This is it. Direct action or nothing.



The problem, my hairless and factless friend, is that direct action is nothing. It won't help the environment, it just bribes the polluters (with taxpayers' money) to make ineffectual token gestures. As a Green voter I would regard it as a betrayal if the Greens politicians encouraged voters to believe Abbott's lies about his non-existant climate policy.


Really says it all doesn't it, Green voters believe that Global Warming is so crucial that they would prefer nothing be done.

How appropriate the title of this thread is.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:27 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

thebaldfacts wrote:
They are hypocrites because they support no action over the only viable alternative that is open to them.


^ What garbage. First, "direct action" is no action. No competent economist on the planet regards "direct action" as a credible, sensible, or practical policy. It's not just bad, it's laughably bad. Second, the Greens strongly and consistently support effective policies to deal with carbon pollution and have done for many years. the very first instant that Abbott or any other leader suggests a genuine, effective, positive policy, the Greens will be falling over themselves to support it, just as they always have done.

_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
thebaldfacts 



Joined: 02 Aug 2007


PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 8:39 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tannin wrote:
thebaldfacts wrote:
They are hypocrites because they support no action over the only viable alternative that is open to them.


^ What garbage. First, "direct action" is no action. No competent economist on the planet regards "direct action" as a credible, sensible, or practical policy. It's not just bad, it's laughably bad. Second, the Greens strongly and consistently support effective policies to deal with carbon pollution and have done for many years. the very first instant that Abbott or any other leader suggests a genuine, effective, positive policy, the Greens will be falling over themselves to support it, just as they always have done.


With respect Tannin, there was an election last year where the people voted for a Party who went to the people with a policy to replace the carbon tax with direct action. Do you recall the outcome?

If so, then you know it is direct action or nothing. Some may say that direct action is less useless than the other schemes, but if you really are concerned about global warming, then take what is on offer.

Only a hypocrite would preach about the dangers of global warming and then prefer that nothing be done.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group