Climate cash goes up in smoke
Mark and Lenore seem to have calculated how much vital-to-life Carbon Dioxide has been reduced by the Government's plans. I would like to see their calculations. Meanwhile, the Gillard Government, in their election campaign said: "No Carbon (Dioxide) Tax." (August 2010)
An analysis of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated.
Julia Gillard has said there will be no tax on carbon while she leads the federal government. The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last week that if Labor won the election there would be no carbon tax during its three-year term.
Ms Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. ''There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,'' she told Network Ten.
As an aside, have your seen or heard any of the Main Stream Journalists questioning the Government on this broken promise?
Practically all the Labor promises in the last two election campaigns have been broken and "no tax on carbon" is no exception. Meanwhile the Government are pushing the "benefits" of taxing carbon (dioxide.) (from Business Spectator)
Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Monday reaffirmed a commitment to pricing carbon pollution, likening the move to key economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s and saying the move would lead to a new technological revolution in Australia.People elsewhere are rapidly coming to the conclusion that the purported environmental benefits of carbon trading and carbon taxes are illusory is amply demonstrated by the rorting and collapse of carbon markets in both Europe and the US. [Click here and here]
Additionally, in March 2010, France ditched its proposed carbon tax. [Click here]. What reason did they give? The government said its energy tax was being postponed indefinitely in order not to "damage the competitiveness of French companies."
Do you think our government knows something the French don't? Personally, I'd like to know if they have any idea where most of our Aussie billions have actually gone, wouldn't you?
Below, a recent picture from NOAA showing how global warming is affecting the Northern Hemisphere. (The white bits are frozen.)
|National Oceanic And Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Image||.|
So are we being told the real reason why certain sections want to reduce carbon (dioxide) emissions? Are we being told why the Climategate CRU lied and tricked up figures to try to show Carbon Dioxide causes dangerous global warming? Are we being told why Bob Brown tries to blame any weather event (hot, cold, wet, dry) on emissions of carbon (dioxide.)
Not according to Ottmar Edenhofer, professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the IPCC and deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact research as well as Fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany. Dear old Ottmar let the cat out of the bag.
Just before the UN climate conference in Cancun (Mexico) in November 2010, Edenhofer acknowledged the IPCC's agenda was not environmental. To climate realists it was not surprising that the IPCC has had a hidden agenda. What is surprising is that one of their leading lights actually feels the whole man-made global warming juggernaut (dare I say "scam") now has enough momentum that he can openly boast about it.
“… we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more...”
Here is one of many references on the Net to Edenhofer's statement [Click here].
Idea and significant contribution by KF