Brendan Nelson has withdrawn the coalition’s support for an emissions trading scheme in the absence of similar schemes in the USA, China and India — a “pre-Howard position on climate change” as one journalist beautifully put it. Despite the fact that developing countries are never going to consider emissions trading if developed countries are not prepared to lead the way, Andrew Bolt thinks it’s a great policy from Nelson and the coalition.

Another brave but politically savvy call by the Opposition Leader… And Nelson’s demeanour in announcing this was also right. No histrionics, but still with a sense of moral purpose.

Nelson’s demeanour was right? Let’s take a look at the good doctor’s demeanour and moral purpose in making his policy announcement.

QUESTION: Are you saying there should be no emissions trading scheme until the post Kyoto arrangements are hammered out and China and India are committed?

DR NELSON: We must be ready to implement an emissions trading scheme as a market-based solution to address climate change and Australia’s contribution to it…

He then continues to dither for two more paragraphs, before providing a more solid answer to the next question.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson [inaudible] clear, regardless of when the start date of am emissions trading scheme would be, if we got to it and China, India and the US were not signed on, you would say that we should not start the scheme?

DR NELSON: We should not start an emissions trading scheme in Australia until we are absolutely confident that it is ready to commence and also that the rest of the world has a start date for dealing with climate change itself.

Okay. But there’s more detail needed.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson you appear to be adopting a sort of a pre-Howard position on climate change; that you’re not even committed to an emissions trading scheme in 2011-12 in the absence of further agreement at Copenhagen. Is that correct and have you given any thought at all to the detail? For example, would you support a slow start to a scheme if it did get up and running with fixed low prices for permits in the early years? Or alternatively the phasing in of different industries?

DR NELSON: Well, again the Coalition’s position has been for the best part of a decade that the whole world has to act…

Then two more paragraphs containing no details about how Doc Nelson thinks Australia should act.

QUESTION: So you’re no longer committed to a 2012 start date for an emissions trading scheme?

DR NELSON: Well again, we have always said that there has to be a genuinely global response…

So, “no” then?

QUESTION: Yes but Dr Nelson, that’s a [inaudible] change of policy… You’re saying that you’ve changed the policy?

DR NELSON: Well, what I’m saying to you is that there has to be a genuinely global response to climate change. That has always been our position. It always will be. Australia acting alone will be an exercise in environmental futility that will be destructive to our economic future. That has always been our position and it continues to be so. We would, we would expect…

QUESTION: But the answer is yes.

DR NELSON: No it’s not.

You poor, poor man, Brendy. I feel sorry for you.

QUESTION: And in the absence of a global agreement at that meeting, your commitment to an emissions trading in 2012 is subject to that, is that what you’re saying?

DR NELSON: Again…

QUESTION: It’s just a little unclear.

DR NELSON: Again, we will annunciate (sic) our policy, under my leadership, once we have carefully examined the Garnaut Report, the green paper, the other sources of expert advice that we are taking, and we’ll have a well-considered approach to it.

Australia can’t wait for you to annunciate (sic) your policy, Dr Dither.

But there was one more humiliation waiting for the opposition “leader”.

QUESTION: Dr Nelson, you say, you say you’re worried about the Greens in the Senate, but aren’t you throwing the emissions trading scheme’s future into their hands if you aren’t prepared to negotiate with the Labor Government and provide your numbers in the Senate to an emissions trading scheme.

DR NELSON: Well you’re putting words in my mouth and that’s not true.

If I could just say one other thing in relation to the Art Monthly photographs…

As usual, when the going gets tough Brendan Nelson resorts to schoolyard retorts and changes of topics. And this is the respectable demeanour and moral purpose that so impressed Andrew Bolt. “Hmm. Have we (correction: I) misjudged the man? Is he growing into leadership material, after all?” asks Bolta.

Not likely.

I’ve got to admit that I almost feel sorry for Andrew Bolt. Watching Gordon Ramsay on television a few weeks ago he fell in love. There was something about Gordon Ramsay — a man’s man with conservative values and masculine pride — that made Bolta’s heart beat a little faster.

I like particularly the standards Ramsay upholds and which drive him to fury when transgressed.

Ramsay, you see, thinks hard work honours man. Slackers drive him spare: “You might as well just f… off.”

He thinks if a job is to be done, it’s best done well. Sloppiness is an insult to a worker’s dignity. A moral crime.

He thinks if you’re taking a man’s wage, you owe him a day’s labour. Those who bludge on their boss are called “cheats” and the worst, like the manager of Dillons, are out the door.

He thinks reason beats irrational sentiment. If orange paintings of what seems global warming turn off customers, then too bad if the owner loves them to sentimental tears; they must go to save the restaurant.

He thinks some authority is better than none when you want things run well. Three managers in one chaotic restaurant get pared to one, despite the tears, because collectives and group fuzzies just don’t work.

Yet he also believes in loyalty and teams - the little platoons of society that are the bedrock of a community.

But just like a lot of desperate crushes this love was not to be. Imagine Andy’s feeling of rejection when he discovered that Ramsay wasn’t quite the man he believed him to be (with a bit of groupthink thrown in for good measure.)

My faith in Gordon Ramsay’s good sense has been shaken. Tim Blair exposes another eco-hypocrite - a global warming prophet in a Ferrari, and with a disturbing taste for banning other people’s little pleasures.

Having your heart broken is no joke. My thoughts are with you, Andrew.

School sets low targets for student scores to ensure that targets are met.

“The modified course only needs to contain one assessment task (maybe the easiest one). The student only needs to get 50 per cent to get an SA (satisfactory achievement) or 15 per cent to get an RA (recorded achievement). It’s that easy!”

President sets low target for reducing carbon emissions to ensure that target is met.

Mr Bush has unveiled a plan to halt the growth of US emissions by 2025…

The Editor, John Surname, Ant Rogenous, Jeremy Sear, Keri, The Happy Revolutionary and Craig discuss:

* Kevin Rudd’s world tour of the world
* Plain English
* The republic
* Climate change alarmism
* Incest
* Keith Windschuttle vs. Archie Roach in the GrodsThink naked cage fight

** Because downloads of Kevin Rudd’s salute to the US Prez on YouTube have caused congestion in teh intertubes use only the “Play in popup” link or the “Download” link. **

 

 GrodsThink 11 (8 April 2008) [33:22m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Subscribe:   

1) Matching words with action… sort of
Victorian Premier John Brumby on Friday addressed a climate change summit and called climate change the “defining issue of our era.” We’ve heard this kind of crisis talk from Brumby and others for quite some time now but it’s very rarely matched with concrete action. On Friday Brumby pledged an extra $72 million for renewable energy projects, but in terms of the government’s overall expenditure, and the scope of the problem as declared by Brumby, $72 million is a drop in the bucket. Signing a “memorandum of understanding” with a Bill Clinton climate change foundation means nothing. Announcing that Parliament House will now be powered by green energy at a cost of $90,000 per year just makes me ask why it wasn’t already. Time for Brumby to stop talking and start doing.

2) More Prodos audio goodness
You’ve probably heard about racial vilification but have you ever heard about carbon vilification? Listen (if you can stand it) to Prodos‘ podcast interview with a svelte looking fellow from the Carbon Sense Coalition. You see, carbon is not a pollutant because we’re all made of carbon and it triggers our impulse to breathe.

3) David Oldfield throws gauntlet
Is 2GB’s overnight presenter David Oldfield (ex-One Nation royalty) so desperate for program content that he issues invitations to appear on his show to any blogger that gives him shit? Broken Left Leg questioned Oldfield’s claim that he is “A nationally successful sportsperson” and immediately received comments from Oldfield’s wife, Lisa, defending David’s sporting background. After a bit more comment argy bargy Lisa Oldfield extended a formal invitation for BLL and other commenters to appear on David’s show.

David would like to extend you and your reader, a forum for you to explain your manifesto in a fair environment with equal air time, so if you are up for it, would you like to join David in the studio ? Name the day, to discuss any topics, of your choosing, that are of concern.

Kind regards,

Lisa Oldfield.

So will Broken Left Leg go on the show? And will he post the audio for us all to hear?

I won’t be taking part in Earth Hour tonight. That’s not to say that I oppose those who are planning to take part, or that I’m going to turn on every light and appliance in my house in protest; it’s just that I don’t think it’s the right thing for me to do. While I believe in human-induced climate change and believe that it’s a significant challenge that we face, I think that Earth Hour is a bit too heavy on symbolism and a bit too light on action. Don’t get me wrong — symbolism is important but it must be backed by concrete action.

As Matthew Warren reports in today’s Oz, only 8% of NSW homes have signed up to “green” power (sourced wholly or in part from renewable sources), rising to 12% in SA and 15% in Victoria. Most people cite cost as a factor in their decision not to upgrade to green power. It’s easy to turn off the lights for an hour but it’s a much more gutsy and honourable decision to pay an extra dollar or two a week to actually make a difference.

At home we try hard to do our bit. We pay about $130 per year on top of our normal electricity bill for 50% Green Power accredited energy, we turn off the entertainment unit (TV, DVD, sound system) and other appliances at the wall when they’re not being used, we have energy saving globes in all suitable light fittings. But we’re not perfect. We don’t turn off everything at the wall (for example, the modem and wireless router are always on), we still use the pre-installed halogen downlights in the kitchen, and sometimes we absent-mindedly leave lights on when we’re not in the room. But the important thing is that we’re making a real effort.

I also despise the way that Earth Hour has turned into a giant marketing carnival as sub-tabloid newspapers and corporations try to out-green each other in declaring their commitment to Earth Hour. Nothing’s surer to turn me off participating in an event than when it turns into a Live 8 style corporate wankfest with a thin sheen of noble cause barely disguising the scramble for branding opportunities.

Again, I bear no ill will towards those who decide to dim their lights for an hour tonight, for if it triggers personal action then it can only be a good thing. But don’t come sermonising if taking symbolic action without real and ongoing action is enough to cleanse your conscience and “raising awareness” is your only goal.

I didn’t think Andrew Bolt could gobsmack me anymore, being largely desensitised as I am to his drivel, but I was terribly wrong. I’m gobsmacked that has just sunk to new intellectual lows with this amazing distortion of facts.

ABC climate alarmist Robyn Williams last year predicted global warming could make the seas rise 100 metres by just the end of the century. Since he spoke, the seas should have risen 1 metre by his calculations, and drowned low-lying cities like Venice.

But, good golly:

No gondola rides were on offer in Venice on Tuesday as the canal city known for its struggle with ever-rising water levels was instead left high and dry by an exceptionally low tide.

Experts predicted that by Tuesday afternoon water would be 70 centimetres (28 inches) below sea level after a record 80 centimetres below was set on Monday, the ANSA news agency reported… The lowest level reached before Monday’s record was minus 77 in 2005.

The exceptionally low tides in Venice were caused by a nearby low pressure system. They’ve happened before; they’ll happen again. Venice is also plagued by floods (the last as recently as three months ago), so severe that the Italian government is building a huge series of underwater dikes (walls, that is — not the kind that Bolta has in his private video collection.) What Bolta’s getting so worked up about is a natural variance that has nothing to do with the theory of human-induced climate change that he is so, so desperately trying to disprove.

But never let facts get in the way of a good old distortion, hey?

Al Gore made a telephone call to his friend in Denver on Sunday causing a snowstorm to move in and block roads.

Last night on the telly Jeremy Clarkson drove an SUV to the north pole on the frozen sea, saw a couple of polar bears and did not fall through the ice.

Today in Melbourne the temperature will only reach 24 degrees in the middle of summer.

Taken together, these three events logically signify the final demolition of the human-induced global warming theory. Let’s all buy a top fuel dragster!

The Editor notes: I have been nominated as Tim Blair for the day by Broken Left Leg. BLL’s instructions dictate that I pass the baton to a blogger that will be Tim Blair for tomorrow. I tag Jeremy. Of course.

A new tactic from Andrew Bolt in his ongoing campaign to disprove human-induced climate change: call Al Gore fat.

Reader Babs wants Al Gore to offer the offsets that will really benefit humanity:

I’m waiting for someone… ANYONE… to come up with a Calorie Offset programme. If it works the same as “Carbon Offsetting”, just think. I can eat whatever I like but as long as I hand over cash, I’ll never put on weight!

Two points:

1) This is the kind of informed, intellectual commentary that makes Andrew Bolt such a respected member of the journalism profession; and

2) How long before Timmeh Blair adopts the same tactic as part of Andy and Timmeh’s ongoing groupthink campaign?

Lachlan Connor has announced his climate change policy.

Continuing the great tradition of climate-change-denying premature induction, Australia’s kraziest kolumnist:

Continuing the great tradition of shivering at protests over global warming:

About 100 school students from across Sydney have gathered to protest during the APEC summit, in defiance of authorities who asked them to stay in school…

They are protesting about a range of issues, including the Iraq War and climate change…

They walked for about half-an-hour, moving down Goulburn Street before returning to Belmore Park for more speeches as rain began to fall.

Same story in Brisbane, where soggy students marched in the same cause:

Ferny Grove, Runcorn, Kedron and Cavendish Road state high schools were also represented at the rally, organised by the socialist alliance Resistance.

Weather in Brisbane?

WINTRY conditions returned to much of Queensland yesterday, with the temperature in Brisbane 7C below average.

Broadcast 1: In the wake of John Howard’s YouTube broadcast today, Lachlan Connor has boned up on his laptop’s camera and editing software to record the first in a new series of personal broadcasts. Enjoy!

Rate this broadcast at YouTube.
Visit Lachlan’s blog.

OK, don’t fall off your seat Ed, but I am actually going to write my first post in about 300 blog years.

The Federal Treasury’s second Intergenerational Report (which we groovers like to call “IGR2″) was released this week and social policy nerds like me were, I’ll say it, excited. The IGR2 is a 40 year projection of Australia’s future economic and demographic position based on current economic growth, government spending and population trends. It’s also something which all portfolios of government rely on for what I believe are socially narrow policies and public spending cutting and is therefore well worth reading so you know where the other side is coming from. It makes a couple more pointed policy references than the IGR1 (eg it refers to the future need for market-based mechanisms, indicating a government position rather than a statistically demonstrated necessity), making me a little more wary of the IGR2 as an ideological weapon rather than a policy-making tool.

Go here IGR2 to have a read.

KEY POINTS of the IGR2:

1. CLIMATE CHANGE:

It’s important to note that the IGR2 does not statistically incorporate the possible effects of climate change on the economy but notes that a policy of government paying for carbon abatement (as opposed to private industry) would cost in the range of at least an additional 1.25 percentage points of GDP which would mean more pressure on public spending.

2. AGEING AND THE PUBLIC PURSE:

- Over the next 40 years, the ageing of the population is projected to slow economic growth with real GDP per person rising more slowly than in the past 40 years.

- Spending pressures in areas such as health, age pensions and aged care are projected to rise. Real Australian Government spending per person will increase by around 4.75 percentage points of GDP by 2046-47.

- Net debt will therefore re-emerge around mid-2030s and increase rapidly, rising to c.30% of GDP by 2046-47.

3. AGEING AUSTRALIANS (THAT INCLUDES YOU):

- The fastest rates of growth will be in the number of people aged 65 and over. About 25% of the population is projected to be 65 and over by 2047. The rate of ageing will quicken after 2010. Fertility rates are still significantly lower than the replacement rate.

- The proportion of the population of traditional working age (15-64 years) will decline by around 8% to 60% (This should mean that there will be low unemployment ie high participation rates).

- The fastest growing group of traditional working age is the group aged 55-64, rising by nearly 50% over the next 40 years.

4. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

- Government will focus on the “potential role of market-based mechanisms in managing spending pressures.” I take this to mean focus on competition policies including in areas traditionally excluded from competitive approaches due to “public good” exemptions (such as some areas of health spending). The social policy maker inside me is scared by this kind of rhetoric, and gets the feeling that the IGR2 is nothing more than a fancy piece of statistical propaganda which will be used to thump chests about public funding cuts for the public good over the next 200 terms of the Howard government.

- The number one spending pressure will be in health, followed by aged pensions and aged care. The Government congratulates itself in IGR2 on the reforms to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which will help reduce this as a spending pressure point. My cynical mind says that reforms have amounted essentially to less government money despite rising costs of new drugs.

5. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

It means that we are still getting older as a population and there are going to be fewer people to drive the economy and pay taxes in the future, up against a need for more public money to spend on health and aged pensions.

The IGR2 is designed as a report which a government should respond to so we don’t end up in a right mess in the year 2046-47. What this Government will probably do is the usual: limit eligibility for pensions, cut spending on other areas like education, harp on about superannuation and so on. What it would be nicer to see is: investment in high yield industries and employment training, support for family-friendly work practices so more people can afford to have kids, corporate responsibility for environmental damage (eg government-private sector shared carbon abatement policies), and basically a less narrow view of the drivers of productivity.

OK my fellow ageing Australians: any thoughts? What are your views of the IGR2 and its findings? How do you think the Government should respond?

“It is more likely that those of a conservative disposition will have a greater quotient of inherent, and I think healthy, scepticism… We get attacked for this, but scepticism is one of the all-time great Australian attributes. It is one of the things Australians are famous for.”

Not only are those on the “left” (or “progressives”) gullible and guilty of groupthink, they are un-Australian too. Well, so says Liberal Senator Nick Minchin. Apparently that’s why people are swallowing this climate change thing hook, line and sinker: they’re not sceptical enough.

If only us “lefties” would be as sceptical of others’ opinions as those great Australians Andrew Bolt and Timmeh Blair. They would never accept anything other people say at face value and incorporate it into their belief system unthinkingly. Oh… hang on.

Peter Garrett is the ALP’s new shadow spokesperson for environment and climate change. I have to say, I didn’t see it coming. I thought they might give him arts, or maybe indigenous affairs, but would shy away from giving the formerly outspoken president of the Australian Conservation Foundation the actual environment portfolio. I guess he might win back some of the people who vote for the other tall man of politics, Bob Brown, and all that he stands for. He might also attract a crowd to the Rudd and Gilliard “listening tour” of Australia (On a side note, this was my favourite quote from K Rudd broadcast from Bundaberg today: Interviewer: “Why are you doing this tour, Mr Rudd?” Mr Rudd: “One word: to listen.” Do you think he said it like that in order to sound less intelligent? I reckon he might have.)

I have to say I am a tiny, grain of sand amount excited at the prospect of the new ALP team. I mean, they are mainstreaming green issues and playing on people’s fears for their children and Rudd doesn’t gross me out if I avoid tv and photo images of him, and today I just listened to the radio so I am feeling more positive. Mr Climate Change only made a few inarticulate responses on air and Rudd is cleverly taking him under his wing on his first big tour of the People whilst cashing in on his rockstar appeal to attract the People in the first place. Could this be the beginning of something worth voting for?