MPCCC shenanigans 16 June

Good piece from Business Spectator on the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.

It’s mostly about the face-off between Christine Milne and Martin Ferguson, but includes interesting stuff on a Labour backbencher called Stephen Jones, and on rooftop solar panels. It concludes –

There’s no doubt the carbon debate has moved forward substantially in the past week, but with more and more of the facts on the table, the political stakes just get higher. MPCCC negotiations will go down to the wire, but there will clearly have to be substantial ground given on both sides.

Labor will do so to avoid annihilation. And the Greens must do likewise. If they don’t, the same voters who think roof-top panels will save the world will simplistically view Milne and her colleagues as the party that blocked carbon pricing legislation yet again.

Advertisements

6 Comments to “MPCCC shenanigans 16 June”

  1. I think Labor locked in their annihilation when Gillard made the statement just prior to the election “..there will be no Carbon Tax under a government I lead” This was obviously done to get the late votes. Gillard then backflipped, presumably to chase another tranche of competing votes.
    In politics you can’t have your cake and eat it too. The voters are pissed. The Climate Commission, Multi Party Climate Committee and the steady flow of reports from Garnaut and speeches from Flannery are seen as spin to prop up Gillards decision to break a promise and introduce a Carbon Tax that the majority of voters don’t want. The planned advertising campaigne will be the final nail in Gillards coffin. Tony Abbott must be thinking how easy is this to pick holes in Gillards policies. Watch the Wilkie/Gillard deal to introduce gaming controls on clubs in Australia. It will sit at the top of the pile of ill advised policies stretching back to 2007.

    • You will find this hard to believe, but I don’t particularly hold a brief for Julia Gillard. If we had Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, we’d probably have an eequally weak emissions trading/carbon tax scheme.

      I think you are pretty wrong about the nature of politics, which is all about having your cake and eating it. Gillard lies, sure, and backflips. But perhaps you can see that Abbott just yells “NO” all the time, and yet also wants to be taken credibly as a statesman (his “negatives” are, correspondingly, very high.)

      The voters are pissed about everything – this is a fearful country at the moment. You may be right that the Commission and the MPCCC are perceived as “spin”, but as usual you don’t cite any sources. I am not aware that any opinion poll has ever been conducted on the MPCCC or the Commission. I suspect that you are going on the basis of what you and peoplewho agree with you on the Internet think. There are lots of other people who see the MPCCC – which the Coalition were invited to be onboard – as a pretty normal form of crossbench legislation-making on an issue that SHOULD have bipartisan support, it being the future health of our society.

      Of course, if you think that climate change is just a “hoax” (taking in, as it does, 19th century physicists, the US military, all the world’s science academies, the insurance industry, green groups, the Financial Times etc) then life is pretty simple.

      Why don’t you share your view Helen. Is climate change a hoax? If you think that, well, it’ll give me today’s chuckle. If not, what would you like to see that esteemed statesman Tony Abbott actually DO? His “direct action” policy has been mocked by lots of people, like Ross Garnaut and, um, Malcolm Turnbull.

  2. Sorry. My apologies. I didn’t know alternative opinions were not permitted. Why are your views in the minority? help me here.

    • Helen, if you think my views are in the minority, you need more help than I – or I suspect anyone else- could offer you. Climate Change is real, much as that is uncomfortable for your beliefs and values. My “minority” views are based on all the world’s Science Academies considered (and peer-reviewed) assessments. And 19th century physics. Claiming they are “my” views is a denialist tactic.

      Your faux apology basically answers my question about whether you are a troll, since it (wounded innocence) is a classic denialist tactic. Alternative opinions are ‘permitted’ – I haven’t blocked your comments (yet). Your martyr complex is showing.

      Alternative opinions are also CHALLENGED. You know, by, um, evidence, and, um, logic. Time to put up or shut up Helen. Are you, as I suspect, a climate denialist? Is climate change a giant hoax? yes or no. I’m not interested in anything else.

  3. I was talking about the majority of Australian voters.
    FYI I am not a denialist I am a thinking moderate. Both the sceptics and the tunnel vision climate conversationists do themselves a disservice. If the arguments were acceptable then there would be no controversy. Can’t have it both ways I am afraid.
    Silly statements from both sides have drowned out the unbiased flow of unbiased plodding science . I suppose the difference between you and I, is that I can understand why the majority of voters don’t want a Carbon Tax and you don’t………….
    FTI I back my convictions and invest in waterfront property.

    • No, you’re so right Helen. I mean, as the recipient of Cate Blanchett’s left over millions, I never have to worry about money. “Tax the proles until the pips squeak”, that’s my motto.

      “A thinking moderate”

      So
      – do you accept that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (principally carbon dioxide) have been accumulating for 200 years and that the concentrations are having a discernable (and accelerating) effect on ecosystems.

      – do you accept the IPCC’s recommendations that to keep below a 2 degree global average temperature rise we need to cut emissions by 25-40% on a 1990 baseline by 2020, and a 90ish percent cut by 2050?

      – do you accept that Australia, with its high per capita emissions, is behind the curve on abatement?

      Just curious, because you know Helen, the truth doesn’t lie in some mystical half way point between the science and the skeptics. The moon is either made of green cheese or it, um, isn’t.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: