Saturday 9th of December 2023

the Frydenberg ...

the frydenberg ...

Tony Abbott came to power on 18 September 2013 and served as PM until 15 September 2015. The two things that stood out to me were firstly, when he appointed Malcolm Turnbull as Commutations Minister, he wanted him to destroy the internet and secondly that he would repeal Labor’s Carbon Tax.

He thought the internet was to access pornography and that Climate Change was a socialist plot to replace communism. Despite his luddite mind the internet survived, albeit a second-rate version.

The Carbon Tax did go and three and a half years later the decision can best be summed up with this comment in “The state of the environment Report 2016” tabled in parliament on Tuesday:

”The government has no national plan to protect the environment in the years to 2050.”

An observation:

“In terms of the environment I wonder what price the people of tomorrow will pay for the stupidity of today.”

What a bloody disgrace this government is. Josh Frydenberg, the minister for the Department of ”I couldn’t care less’’ tried to jump the gun by writing a column for the Guardian. In it he said the Coalition will “use this report to continue the good work” the government is doing in environmental policy. Frankly the man needs a manager. He’s been handling himself too long.

The report is commissioned by the government every 5 years and is written by independent experts. They say that Climate Change is beyond debate and that it will cause enormous damage in the future. Climate change is now irreversible.

Freydenberg was out and about doing what his predecessor Greg Hunt did for year after year, creating the illusion they were doing something whilst doing nothing. Telling lies in other words. The tide has turned and people are now taking in the catastrophic damage that climate change will do to future generations. That a government can just continue to pay lip service to the science is beyond belief.

I suppose I have never come to grips with the fact that supposedly intelligent men can be so dismissive of the science.

An observation:

“How can one man hold the future of the planet in his hand while the remaining leaders kowtow to him?”

In the same year that Abbott came to power I wrote an essay titled “Climate Change. A Lay person’s dilemma”. Here are a few paragraphs:

“For the life of me, I cannot understand people who accept science in fact and use it every day somehow become brain-dead when it comes to climate science.  However, lay people like me who believe in the existence of climate change cannot honestly claim to know the veracity of the science for ourselves but are happy to delegate this task to climate scientists.

Laypeople simply do not have the knowledge to adjudicate on the issue.

On the other hand the, those who deny the overwhelming scientific consensus seek to justify their belief by attaching themselves to a minority of  science sceptics with obscure qualifications or worse to right-wing shock jocks and journalists with no scientific training what so ever. These people (like you and me) have no way of evaluating the volume of data produced by the various scientific institutions. One of the most outspoken sceptics (Andrew Bolt) has recently been found guilty of deceptive lying in that he defamed some white skinned aboriginals. One has to wonder how many he has told when writing about his favourite topic climate change.

If I do not support the 95% of scientists, every major scientific institution and the research that is constantly peer evaluated I am obliged to accept the alternative. That is that I should take seriously the likes of Andrew Bolt, (A journalist) Alan Jones, (I’m not sure how you would describe his contribution to society) Lord Monckton (A discredited something who was once a lobbyist for the tobacco companies) Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott. (Both politicians). In fact, Minchin is on the record as saying that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy to replace communism. None of the aforementioned people has a background or expertise in climate science.

Now that’s not to say that they should not have a view and that view should not be considered as should any laypersons if they are of that ilk. But surely, we must respect the science otherwise; you put into question all science.”

When a government is so out of step with science, public expectations and what we call common sense, we need in our democracy some sort of trigger that overrides the normal decision-making process and gives the public a greater say. Some sort of people’s referendum after a suitable petition.

Frydenberg - Another Hunt