on 13-04-2014 02:16 PM
Slowly, inexorably, we are inching towards the time when one of the greatest fudges in recent Australian politics will be exposed.
Tony Abbott’s political demolition of the former government’s carbon pricing scheme was based not on what many in his party believe – that climate change is not happening and there is therefore no need to do anything at all – but rather on the assertion that the Coalition could achieve “the same” environmental benefit in an almost pain-free way.
The painlessness and effectiveness of the Coalition’s Direct Action plan has long been disputed. Study after study has concluded that it would actually require far more than the allocated money ($300m, $500m, $750m and then – at least according to the original document – $1bn a year until 2020) to achieve emissions reductions, but the environment minister, Greg Hunt, simply brushed them all aside and insisted his plan would work. Since it was always so vaguely defined it was difficult for those with doubts to pursue the debate.
And post-election it turns out that “the same” environmental benefit might well be the very bare minimum 5% reduction by 2020, despite the Coalition having promised in writing to increase that target under specific circumstances. The independent regulator (which the Coalition is seeking to abolish) says under the agreed conditions it should now be trebled. The Coalition says it is sticking with 5%.
But on both these fronts – the effectiveness and cost of the policy and the target it will need to achieve – a moment of truth is imminent.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/direct-actions-moment-of-truth-is-imminent
Solved! Go to Solution.
on 13-04-2014 03:55 PM
on 13-04-2014 03:56 PM
on 13-04-2014 03:59 PM
on 13-04-2014 04:00 PM
@lakeland27 wrote:hunt keeps sidestepping these questions . any comments nero ?
direct action is a dud that will cost us billions. can you justify it ?
apparently not, cartoons though.
on 13-04-2014 04:19 PM
do i see an outing?! *chuckles
on 13-04-2014 04:32 PM
on 13-04-2014 04:47 PM
on 13-04-2014 04:48 PM
on 13-04-2014 05:01 PM
@just_me_karen wrote:
Nero giggles can u please explain to me how direct action will work when national parks are unlocked for clear felling whilst a green army of unprotected slaves plants trees.
How many baby trees will we need to plant to cover the carbon load of each massive old growth rainforest tree?
clearly the answer is 7 - 4 + 4 which is 3. giggle, giggle, snort. snort, hiccup, hiccup.......
on 13-04-2014 05:04 PM
@nero_wulf wrote:Poor alarmists must be so hard *giggle*
Excellent read here for the alarmists
this is in fact fairly correct nero. someone seems to actually get it. so it must get a green tinge.