Fight The Emissions Trading Scheme


In Australia, there are moves to create a tax plan based on carbon emissions, and this plan should be open to intense scrutiny. Via Andrew Bolt, I learned of a campaign to debate the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

This campaign is being launched by Jennifer Marohasy, and her plan and premise are clear:

I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposed for Australia on the basis:

1.  An ETS will not change the global temperature;

2.  Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and

3.  Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.

She’s quite right on all of it. Their aim is to raise $30,000 to create a website and launch a formal campaign to bring more awareness to the debate on the ETS. If you’re able, donate! Donations of more than $2 are tax-deductible, but as always, do your own research into the group before handing over your hard-earned.

The ETS proposed by the Rudd Government, if passed, means that depending on your tax bracket and earnings, there is a chance that you’ll be required to pay up to 90 cents of every dollar you earn in tax.

It’s a fight worth supporting, particularly when you consider how well the environment does do, when there’s enough water to help it grow.

sherbrooke-forest-1

Sherbrooke Forest: Lookin' Good

UPDATE: Slatts highlights just one article that proves that there needs to be a more open debate.

‘Global warming is not our most urgent priority’


Bjørn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, tells James Delingpole that it is better to spend our limited funds on saving lives than on saving the planet

Gosh, I do hope Bjørn Lomborg doesn’t think I was trying to pick him up. I’ve only just learned from his Wikipedia entry that he’s ‘openly gay’ which, with hindsight, probably made my dogged insistence that we conduct our interview in his cramped hotel bedroom look like a cheap come-on. Not to mention the way I sat there throughout, mesmerised and sometimes lost for words under the gaze of the handsome, trim 43-year-old blond’s intensely sincere Danish blue eyes which never leave yours for one second.

But it’s OK, Bjørn. You were safe all along, I promise. The reason for my awe is quite simply that I believe you are one of the heroes of our age. You’ve been called the antichrist, been vilified ad hominem in numerous scientific journals, even had custard pies thrown in your face (at Borders bookshop, Oxford, by an eco-activist), but still you’ve stuck to your guns and continued bravely to reiterate what for a time seemed almost unsayable.

Lomborg’s basic argument — as laid out in his bestsellers, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It! — is that the world isn’t in nearly as bad a mess as the eco-doomsayers claim it is. And before we do anything too drastic to try to make things better, we ought first to ascertain what its most pressing problems are, rather than throw good money after hopeless causes.

Lomborg’s latest venture is a body he has founded called the Copenhagen Consensus. Funded mainly by the Danish government, this research panel comprises 50 leading economists, including five Nobel Laureates, and has spent two years applying cost benefit analysis methods to a list of global challenges — disease, pollution, conflict, terrorism, climate change, water and so on.

Lengthy one from The Spectator UK

%d bloggers like this: