Wednesday 24th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

the old bait & switch trick .....

the old bait & switch trick .....

Rudd Labor was elected on a promise to "tackle climate change" but after signing the Kyoto Protocol in December 2007 (10 years late) it helped the US (the stand-out non-ratifier of the Kyoto Protocol) to sabotage the Bali Climate Change Conference (December 2007) and then the Poznan Climate Change Conference (December 2008) by refusing to commit to targets.

Rudd Labor stalled any action in Australia by appointing an economist, Professor Ross Garnaut, to spend nearly a year investigating what is essentially a scientific problem of how too deal with man-made climate change. After a further year of politicking it has yet to gets its proposed Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) through Parliament.

The Rudd Labor ETS is dishonestly called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) - whereas in reality it is estimated that Australia's GHG pollution will INCREASE under the CPRS policies.

The ethical, pro-environment Australian Greens object to the CPRS (ETS) as a fraudulent and ineffective scam that auctions GHG pollution permits and then returns most of the money right back to the worst polluters. In contrast , within the Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition most MPs are climate change denialists and the Coalition wants the ETS watered down even further before they will agree to it.

The Coalition have now got part of their wish - the Government has capitulated by agreeing to permanently exclude agricultural GHG emissions from the ETS. However this makes the ETS an utterly toothless tiger. The Cap on emissions is consequently impossibly low because it will now exclude from consideration the biggest Australian domestic source of GHG pollution, agriculture, which is responsible for over 50% of domestic emissions, while also ignoring Australia's huge exported GHG pollution in the form of coal and LNG exports.

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya171109.htm

The problem - now the solution - if permitted.

When these useless meetings of the climate change deniers occur, the only effect that they can possibly have is to delay any worthwhile attempt to turn things around. Popular politics.

I believe that Kevin Rudd has made his demands so small that it should be hard for the opposition to give any cogent reason that it should be denied. But they will, because they are the representatives of the corporations and for the corporations.

However, the P.M. could be trying to govern this country as he was elected to do and is forced to negotiate with his dedicated opposition, no matter what.

I have no idea how he will handle the situation that he has won a significant victory over the extreme right of the Howard “New Order” but, what a hollow victory it becomes when the democratically ignored opposition controls the Senate?

The majority of the Australian people voted for the Rudd Labor government to be the decision makers of Australia’s future, at least for their term of Office.

I do not understand the use of the Senate in this day and age.  My understanding is that it was originally intended to be a “House of Review” to ensure that the smaller States were given an equal vote with the more populated states.  Wrong?

Over the years the Senators have enjoyed a weird way of election and generally their behavior has bottle-necked the administration of the elected government of our country.

The principle of removing an unpopular government by a general election is a false hope.  The motley Senate; strange and sometimes guilty of abusing parliamentary privilege is clearly being used as it was not intended – otherwise the House of Representatives is unnecessary.

I do not envy Kevin Rudd or his obviously competent government.

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

 

 

 

Just a guess of total confusion.

A guess as to the vote on climate change legislation by the rag-tailed opposition who cannot afford to ridicule another leader after the US puppet Howard.

 

There will be either a vote in favor of the leader’s attitude on “party lines” (because otherwise they have to find another leader) or they are back to the drawing board.

 

A Senate control, especially of such an important issue, must surely highlight the stupidity of the bastardised Senate system of protecting the interest of the States and Territories.  Because it doesn’t.  It merely gives power to insignificant individuals who have aspirations to be more than just a State representative.

 

Would the Constitution be offended if these State elected individuals were only allowed to vote on issues which may disadvantage their State or Territory?  That’s as they were intended to be by the founding fathers.  What a mess.

 

In addition the stupid performers like the “poodle” Pyne and Fielding and Joyce and Minchin will have to save face – how?  How about “we tried our best” then, which ever way the result goes – the Howard half right and half wrong on the republican issue will resurface.

 

If the cause of climate change is in part or even more so, due to the industrial revolution and its unlimited expansion irrespective of their individual procedure of reducing employment due to technology, must eventually create an identical totalitarian regime that only existed when the “masses” were just to be used as required.

 

Outside of bigotry for political points, I cannot understand why the Turnbull opposition has voted against the original mild attitude of the Rudd government.

 

We have clearly voted in a government whose principles and allegiances are almost always diametrically opposed to the Howard “New Order” – and yet – they are not allowed to govern!  There must be something wrong.

 

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.

 

 

From an unamed Journo from "The Australian".

In part it says:

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong wrote to Mr Turnbull on Tuesday demanding the Coalition deliver its amendments by October 19, when Parliament resumes.

Mr Turnbull, speaking from London, said the party would sign off on the leaderships' proposed changes.

"The shadow cabinet will approve the amendments and we will present them to the party room and we'll get the agreement of the party room," he said.

"We will come to a common position which we'll then sit down and negotiate with the Government. (My emphasis).

Can anyone understand that as a crass political ploy?  What the hell have they been negotiating if not a package to put to their party room rabble? And, if that is accepted, or not, what is left to negotiate? Fair dinkum.

I don’t know what Penny Wong thinks but I am as confused as the Coalition supporters must be.

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.