not just 'heads in the sand' (AusBC; heads up their ...)

.. not just King Canutes (self-proclaimed 'Born to Rule' Liberals) ...

  .. not just idiotically, wilfully, stupidly 'gimme-more' greedily suicidal ...

    .. they will drag us all down as they go -

      .. all for a few $s *more*

-=*=-

Preamble, #1: This story is a bewdy; almost all-in-one. Foolishness, that is, short-sightedness, that is; arrogance, and traitorous past the point of criminality - any more? Let's see...

Preamble, #2: Since the creepy "All politicians lie!" Howard was turfed out of his own seat, and simultaneously 'his' party thrown out of government, the Liberals have chewed their way through leader after leader (Nelson gone, Turnbull on the skids towards a cliff), with the cowardly-quisling Costello having 'jumped ship.' (Not that he could or would ever lead us anywhere good.)

Preamble, #3: I present this 1st, as a series of yes/no questions; anyone answering a question with a 'no' may subsequently directly exit; this thread is not for nay-sayers.

Preamble, #4: CO2 is a required part of our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere; it is the presence of a certain amount which creates our 'pleasant climate of life,' too little & the planet descends into an ice-age, too much and the climate will warm, some/most/all the ice will melt, apart from agricultural chaos, sea-levels may rise as much as 70m - drowning almost all the world's major population centres. Now, to the questions:

Q1: Do we wish to save the planet from the threatening excess CO2-caused climate catastrophe?

(IF A: No THEN exit.)

Q2a: Excess CO2 comes from burning fossil carbon (coal, oil.) Do we wish to reduce our burning of fossil carbon?

(IF A: No THEN exit.)

Q2b: Australia is a major source of coal. To reduce coal-burning *someone, somewhere* must do a net reduction in coal-mining. Do we wish Aus to reduce the mining of coal?

(IF A: No THEN exit.)

Q2c: Justice for all; we can't expect others to reduce unless we do too. Do we wish to do our fair share towards reducing our burning of fossil carbon?

(IF A: No THEN exit.)

Summary & cut-off; long story short: *someone, somewhere, some-when* has to start saving the planet,

  not a Q but: IF we leave it too late,

    THEN A: It'll all be over.

-=*=-

2nd part; some delicious iron-y, (g'day Bob).

This AusBC item caught my eye: "Turnbull evokes Menzies as stance hardens".

Of course (for some of us), any mention of Menzies evokes pig-iron-Bob (quite a different Bob, but - there's almost always a but:) definitely part of a line of Liberal so-called 'leaders.'

The reason Menzies got his 'pig-iron' moniker was for selling critical raw-materials used to arm prospective enemies, namely the Japs.

Turning to Howard, he crowed loud & long over whopping gas sales to China (recall 'aiding prospective enemies.') No, we needn't mention what Rudd might doing, because that's just a variation on 'more of the same;' we are focussing on this particular AusBC item.

One point (v.important!) to note about Howard's whopping gas sales to China, is that insufficient detail was given. This was/is no accident; they never tell us all the (v.pertinent!) details - such as the final price achieved, the true return to us, we the sheople, we the voters, we the sovereign owners.

Q: Why do we not get all the pertinent details?

A: Because we're always being ripped-off.

Q: How, why?

A: Well, 'why' is obvious (the already filthy-rich making themselves obscenely richer), and 'how' = super-profits, aka economic rent.

-=*=-

Interlude: The best way to see how 'economic rent' works is to consider Iraq; illegal invasion now morphed into a brutal occupation (murder for oil.) Only a cretin or a complete fool would even try to deny that that (i.e. oil) is what the US is after (next: Iran); even considering that it might have been dragged, kicking & screaming (haw!) - by its illegitimate tail, the equally criminal Z-rael Lobby. Anyone who believes that the US would spend vast amounts of treasure (some estimates, now old: $US3trio) and 1000s of lives of their own "young & free" (not to mention the 100s of 1000s, if not 1.3mio+ hapless, avoidably dead, Iraqi 'collaterals') - without it being well 'worth their while' must be more than a little bit - err, crazy? (Try psychopathic.)

Anyway; the approximate cost of 'mining' a barrel of Iraqi oil has long stood at around $US1. Then, notice this: the current oil-price - accent on price as opposed to value; the 'market' is always manipulated, either by producers or (far, far, catastrophically worse!) speculators, and basically people *must* buy no matter what the price (buy - or walk, say) - at the momentary price of around $US71, there is a gap of about $US70, after (low-ish) overheads. As much as they can grab of that $US70 will land in the greedy pockets of the producer/retail chain. This, then, is the source of 'super-profits,' aka 'economic rent.' Which can be super-massive; only a tiny part of which is ever returned to we the sheople, we the voters, we the sovereign owners. That's exactly how we get ripped-off, and why the details are never given (and not just oil or mining; this describes a wide-spread preferred resource rip-off 'model'). What we the sheople, we the voters, we the sovereign owners get is a) jobs during construction of mining infrastructure, b) jobs during the actual extraction, c) some piddling royalties and d) some (ridiculously low) company-tax on the (finagled) profits of the primary producer. The rest of the supply/retail chain is as off-shored as possible; I calculated the 'delivered' price of Howard's gas to China at ¢16.7 when the retail price to us in Aus at the time was about three times that.

The point of this interlude is this: Liberal resistance to an ETS is based (ostensibly) on jobs; the ETS is *designed* to reduce Aus carbon-burning in the short-run, and the world's carbon-burning in the long-run, with the idea of saving the planet. However, the true, direct and massive beneficiary of the Liberal's resistance to an ETS is not we the sheople, but the already rich shareholders (how many o/s? Recall BHP off-shored itself) and their obscenely 'paid' executives all getting ever filthy-richer. The importance of jobs to the people should not be minimised (a major 'achievement' of neoliberalism; not much 'job security' if any, these days), but it is to the short-term benefit of the ravenous resource-exploiters that the Liberals wish to jeopardise the entire world's future.

-=*=-

Sooo, back to the AusBC article, and a truly massive irony:

  «Last night one of the rebels - South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi - got a talking to from conservative commentator and ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen on ABC TV's Q&A program.
"They think they're torchbearers of conservatism by the way, and I'm sorry Cory but you do, and they're not," she said.
"I don't think you are being one here, because at its core, conservatism is about being pragmatic."» 
[AusBC/ibid.]

Presumably, what Albrechtsen's 'pragmatic' means here, is for Bernardi to agree with Turnbull to negotiate with the government on proposed amendments to the ETS (i.e. fiddling on the edges), knowing full-well that they (the 'useless' opposition) will most likely vote to block the legislation anyway, and f**k any chance of ever meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions... recall that any reduction in mining reduces the income of the Lib's main backers, and the Libs don't wanna do that, ever. So much, for 'representing' us, we the sheople.

The irony: one of Murdochs 'babes' (placed on the AusBC board by Howard and 'his' Liberals) dares to lecture a Liberal ETS blocker on being pragmatic - while at the same time being prepared to let the world go down the tubes.