Oh goody, shes written another piece full of “facts” for the age
Were you to arrive in Australia and read the front pages of our newspapers you would be forgiven for thinking that we are living in some type of black hole, devoid of information, news and expert opinion from the rest the world.
I dont know if shes noticed, but the thing shes writing on is called a “newspaper”, what shes being fisked on is a new fangled “computer”.
What other possible explanation could there be for the ignorance of those who warn of the end of civilisation were a carbon tax to established than by claiming Australia would be out on a limb, leading the world.
The explanation that they see a scam, and your best efforts at convincing them are crap? Have a look at your side, they are the ones claiming 50,000,000 climate refugees would be created by…last year…
Leading the world? You’ve got to be joking. Many other countries have already put a price on carbon and introduced realistic pollution reduction targets. And while they are spending significant public and private dollars firming up investment in the technologies and energy sources for the future, Australia is still locked in a debate over whether big polluters should even pay for their pollution.
Baby steps first Sarah, you havent convinced 51% of the Australian population that carbon dioxide is going to cause global catastrophe yet. Get that out of the way and you’ll find it much easier.
Ill Type this slowly so you can comprehend it. China is now the worlds highest overall emitter of carbon. This chart is from the “union of concerned scientists” they are on your side.
Per Capita Emissions (Tons/Capita)
What does that tell you Sarah? China is going to expand its energy consumption roughly fourfold to western standards over the next few decades. Even if you assume 75% of that growth will be “renewables” the absolute growth in emissions would double.
Unfortunately this isn’t just leaving us with a reputation of being environmentally blind, it is also costing us real jobs right here in our own backyard.
No its not costing us jobs, point out a job lost, right now, which isnt relying on a subsidy generated by taxing someone?
Let’s just take Europe for example, where many countries have already had a carbon tax for 10 years or more.
Let look at France then eh? One of the biggest movers and shakers in the EU.
“Since an EU-wide carbon tax is unlikely to gain approval in months ahead, if at all – the Swedish government pushed the idea with little success during its EU presidency last year – the French levy has, in effect, been shelved.
France would have been the largest economy to impose a levy on energy use linked to a notional price of carbon. France has one of the lowest “carbon footprints” in Europe largely because of 88 per cent of its electricity comes from nuclear plants.”
And they use Nukes… the buggers!
I’ve just returned from an official parliamentary delegation to Denmark, Sweden and Greece, meeting with various governments, MPs, businesses and industry leaders. Meeting after meeting the message was clear – Australia is far behind in tackling greenhouse gas emissions and absent in using smart investment choices to drive the use of renewable energy.
Hmm lets look at Greece then. Heres George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister….
“We need a mechanism which can be funded through different forms and different ways,” he said. “My proposal is that taxes such as a financial tax or carbon dioxide taxes could be important revenues and resources for funding such a mechanism.”
Im sure Swedens much better eh?
• Sweden gets all its electricity either from hydroelectric power or nuclear plants
Business leaders wanting to invest in Australia would say “Australia has great wind, solar opportunities but until there’s a carbon price we can’t afford to start-up there”.
Otherwise know as “we can’t operate at an economically competitive price, please cripple the competition and give us subsidies”…
The delegation would have to explain that Australia is lagging because we still don’t have an agreement from some parties that polluters should pay for their pollution and that the market should be given the signals to drive reform.
“The market” will be artificially created by legislation, will rely on legislation to sustain it, and will cripple the non-services based sectors of our economy. Your “Market” is much like saying the Taliban have established a “Market” in beards. Its not a market if it is forced on people.
Admittedly, many European countries had to change their ways some 30 years ago as a result of the oil crisis in the Middle East, forcing them to find more self-sufficient ways to power their homes and industry. Development in wind-power, hydro-electricity and bio-fuel among others ensured that there has been a multi-source mix of power for decades.
No nukes still? Hmm what else was happening here in Oz about that long ago?? (cough/Franklin river dam/cough) If only we’d had politicians enlightened enough to build hydro power eh? Still we are smarter now eh?
Now, in the face of climate change, the EU members have signed up to the 20-20-20 platform (20 per cent emission reductions with at least 20 per cent of renewable power and energy efficiency increase all by 2020). And as a result there is now a race between the countries as to who can be more ambitious in order to secure the industry investment on their soil.
You need to adjust a policy or 2 of your own first Sarah
“President Barroso began by stressing how today’s unprecedented global financialcrisis has made the EU all the more determined to “move ahead with its climatechange package” and fulfil its 20-20-20 targets and. He then delivered his coremessage, namely that all low-carbon energy sources, including nuclear energyand renewables, must be exploited if the goals of the package are to be achievedand Europe’s low-carbon future is to be secured.”
While countries like Sweden have had a carbon tax for 20 years, the debate in parliaments throughout Europe is how they can become carbon neutral by 2050. The idea that those who pollute should pay for the cost of that pollution is simply understood as commonsense. Political parties from the far-right to the far-left agree with a carbon tax and the need to reduce pollution.
You can spout Sweden has had a form of the tax for 20 years, yet you missed this little tit-bit
Sweden currently has three operational nuclear power plants, with ten operational nuclear reactors, which produce about 45% of the country’s electricity. The nation’s largest power station, Ringhals Nuclear Power Plant, has four reactors and generates about a fifth of Sweden’s annual electricity consumption. The power plants in Forsmark and Oskarshamn each have three reactors.
You might also note they are a huge consumer of their own populations monies through taxes. Funnily enough politicians of all stripes like lots of money.
“Those who pollute” are THoSE WHO CONSUME, ford doesnt make cars and force them on people, coke doesnt make drinks that force you to drink them. Can you explain, in small simple words, how a tax on energy isnt a consumption tax of the most basic variety?
With no exemptions for bread/water/heating etc.
They all agree with the polluter pays system and that taking action on climate change can also be good for business.
How is taxing industry a good thing? Are you seriously trying to lower the living standards of whole populations for the first time since the industrial revolution?
The message to take home from our European cousins is that we are falling embarrassingly behind in facing the realities of climate change. From a business perspective our lacklustre someone-else-will-wash-the-dishes attitude is costing investment opportunities and real jobs in manufacturing, construction and service delivery.
You are really stupid enough to write this?
“.. investment opportunities and real jobs in manufacturing, construction and service delivery.”
While Australian industry at the moment complains of constraints caused by labour shortages due to massive investment in real, existing, producing things economy now?
And to Barnaby Joyce, who doesn’t want Australia to lead the way – well, it’s okay, no need to worry, we’re not.
April 20, 2011, 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm
This is the lady who in my opinion should grow up.
April 20, 2011, 10:07 pm at 10:07 pm
Putting a tax on carbon dioxide emissions is exactly like ending slavery.
And Sarah Hanson-Young is today’s William Wilberforce.
So shut UP.
April 20, 2011, 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm
Nicely done Mole.
“You are really stupid enough to write this?”
The scary thing is she is stupid enough to believe it.
April 21, 2011, 3:39 am at 3:39 am
No worries mole. Touted the shit (again, as always) tonight, and whereas before would be shouted down, got an ear. A big fat beautiful decent ear.
April 21, 2011, 6:47 pm at 6:47 pm
Surely she doesn’t really believe this stuff she writes, it’s not hard to do a bit of research on the computer before you actually put pen to paper so to speak.
Really good post had a bit of a laugh as well. 🙂
April 21, 2011, 10:07 pm at 10:07 pm
She believes it. Been an activist since uni days. Never done anything else… except stuff her face.
April 27, 2011, 9:36 am at 9:36 am
The hypocritical lardy layabout clocks up substantial airmiles flying the kid’s personal nanny to & fro from Adelaide?
… cos she’s our ‘better’, perhaps?
April 23, 2011, 6:10 pm at 6:10 pm
Great Post Mr Mole !
Long may you frolic!
April 26, 2011, 1:33 pm at 1:33 pm
[…] Fisking Sarah Hanson-Young « The Tizona Group […]