Saturday 20th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

politics versus sciences

politics versus sciencespolitics versus sciences

Mathias Cormann has refused to say if the Turnbull government still has confidence in Dr Alan Finkel after the chief scientist warned Australia would not meet its emissions reduction target under the Paris agreement with current federal policy settings.

“Look at our track record,” Cormann told Sky News on Sunday. “People thought that we couldn’t meet the 2020 emissions reduction target based on our policy settings and indeed we are exceeding those targets.

“We are very confident that with our policy settings we are able to meet the 2030 emissions reduction targets.”

Asked if he had lost faith in Finkel, given Finkel warned clearly last week that the government’s policy settings had to change if it wanted to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target under the Paris agreement, Cormann said: “My answer is pretty self-evident.”

 

The reality behind all this is that Cormann is a politician.

Like Tony Abbott, like Cory Bernardi, Cormann is somewhat religious and sciences gives him the pip, subconsciously. Here one must add, like I have done many times before, politics and economicis ARE NOT SCIENCES, just fiddles of failed logics in which one can make square pegs fir into round holes. Politics and economics are ART forms in which the parameters are elastic and can be adapted to suit a view point. Like religion, politics and economics rely on telling porkies, lies, whoppers and a certain dogma, which at present is neo-liberal neoconservative in which religious thinking is the main deceptive tradition.

the direct action plan is a fudge...

When Cormann talks about reaching the emission reduction goals for 2020, he is basically telling a fib. So far the target is small, the difference between the starting point and the achievement has been so reduced that one cannot compare a a fat man doing stroll in the park with the necessary marathon.

So the COALition had fiddled the books to suit the statement that "we're on track to achieve sumpthin' by 2020". Don't believe a word of it: emissions of CO2 from Australia are increasing faster than you can say "barrier reef".

Tony Abbott is a clever idiot and so is about 90 per cent of the members of the COAlition, except they are not clever — just silly dangerous geese.

cooking bipartisanship...

Political leaders are optimistic that today's talks on climate change can help end a decade-long brawl about energy policy.

Key points:
  • Malcolm Turnbull wants bipartisanship on national energy policy
  • Finkel Report calls for a clean energy target to cut pollution, encourage investment
  • Energy industry leader says "this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix 10 years of uncertainty"

 

Malcolm Turnbull is meeting state and territory leaders in Hobart with climate change at the heart of the talks.

Chief scientist Alan Finkel will hand them his blueprint on national energy policy.

Mr Turnbull said he wanted to achieve bipartisanship on the issue and see it based on engineering and economics, not partisanship.

Premiers also said they hoped to find common ground.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has been signalling he might speak out against Dr Finkel's plan, but Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said he did not want to see Mr Abbott cause drama about it.

"Well, let's hope not," Mr Joyce told Sky.

Dr Finkel's report calls for a clean energy target(CET) — a policy designed to cut pollution and encourage more investment in the sector.

The CET would require electricity retailers to buy a set amount of power from low emission power generators.

Dr Finkel has suggested it could cut in at about 0.7 tonnes of CO2 per megawatt hour, which means it would give a boost to both gas suppliers and renewable energy producers.

It could also potentially cover coal-fired power stations which have carbon capture and storage technology.

read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-09/will-the-finkel-report-end-climate...

Should the Finkel review underwrites "clean coal" then his paper is a lot of bullshit...