with friends like these (ETS = CO2 reduction??!)

.. one hardly needs enemies ...

   .. but we've got some real bewdies anyway


Trigger article:

Climate deal disappoints business groups
Posted December 21, 2009 11:31:00
  «Treasurer Wayne Swan has signalled the Government will press ahead with plans to reintroduce the emissions trading scheme legislation in February.
Ms Ridout says she will support any such move.
"Ai Group was supportive of the legislation going through, the amended legislation," she said.»
[AusBC/Sue Lannin for AM]

Comment: (My bold.) Generally I find, that IF Ms Ridout is 'for' something, THEN I'm against it. This all accords with my suspicion that the Lab ETS is as good as indistinguishable from the Lib one that Howard (with Abbott 'all the way') took to the '07 election; the same election where the Libs were routed, and Howard got the personal-boot - thanks, Maxine.

Ms Ridout: «... was supportive of the legislation going through, the amended ...» The Greens said that the *Lib* amendments added $7bio in costs/subsidies, of which $5bio were to be directly off-loaded onto the sheople. Thanks, but "No, thanks!" to the Libs, to Ms Ridout, to the Ai Group.

In the same article:

Climate deal disappoints business groups
Posted December 21, 2009 11:31:00
  « But the Minerals Council of Australia says it would now be churlish for the Federal Government to reintroduce the carbon trading scheme legislation in the new year.
The head of the council, Mitch Hooke, is not happy with what came out of the climate talks in Copenhagen.
"We need a global protocol and we need that to be in alignment with the development and deployment of emissions technologies and we need market mechanisms, commercial drivers, to essentially push the deployment of those new technologies through," he said.
He says if the Federal Government reintroduces the emissions trading scheme early in the new year, the Council will not support it
[AusBC/Sue Lannin for AM, ibid.]

Comment: (My bold.) The Minerals Council is a resource-extraction lobby; they do *not* want a reduction of their 'business' - exactly the opposite - like far too many, they always want *more*, in this case coal-mining. But we simply *cannot* reduce CO2 pollution without reducing the amount of coal (+oil, gas) that we extract & burn...

In a previous article:

Copenhagen failure 'vindicates Opposition stance'
Posted December 21, 2009 10:22:00
  «Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says the outcome shows their vote against the emissions trading scheme is now vindicated.
"It does show that Mr Rudd was really very, very unwise to want to rush us into this emissions tax prior to knowing what the rest of the world wanted to do," he said.»
[AusBC/Samantha Hawley for AM]

Comment: (My bold.) On the lighter side, calling Lab's ETS a 'tax' must have 'focus-grouped' well. More seriously, Abbott is being 'economical with the truth' on several fronts here. The ETS concept comes from the 'market for all ills' faction - as the miners' spokesperson said: "... market mechanisms, commercial drivers, to essentially push ..." Since Lab Oh, so successfully wedged Lib over ETS (Howard pushed one), Abbott is frantically trying to distance himself from that wedge - hence, presumably, this 'tax' allegation. Calling it a tax is misleading in several ways; a) that Lab's ETS is somehow trying to rip the sheople off, b) it implies that there may be some ETS *without* such a tax component (show us, Mr Abbott), c) IF Lab's ETS had a tax component, THEN Libs put some/all of it there (see Green's $5bio allegation above) so Abbott; pot-kettle, and d) that the Libs somehow have a better idea (so far, *not*!) Again recall that the ETS idea comes from Howard's/Abbott's ideological 'side.'

I think we've had Rudd referring to Lib fantasies as 'magic puddings' before (i.e. the Libs 'have form' (admittedly, this one works both ways)); so I'd like to hear from Abbott&Co as to exactly how they intend to reduce CO2 *without costs*, and/or IF any costs ensue, THEN who's gunna pay - *except* we, the poor hapless sheople? (Only profits trickle up, costs trickle down.)

In this respect, it's also worth noting that IF taxes are applied, THEN a) the govt has more $s to spend (exactly Abbott's allegation: "Tax and spend!") - OR, in the 'balanced-budget' scenario b) the govt. can reduce some other tax. IF the govt. reduces taxes overall, THEN the sheople *must* lose some govt. services (*exactly* what's happening at Fed, state & local levels). IF the govt. reduces *net* taxes - but the 'relief' is biased towards the rich (recall profits trickle up, costs trickle down), THEN we, the sheople lose twice...

Fazit: It's not as if the Labs get away "scot-free." (Haw!) In the 1st place, by choosing an ETS they are 'pandering' to the rotten, now largely discredited 'markets for everything' philosophy; in the 2nd place, they're choosing an ETS in face of the far better 'supply-side' alternative, namely a direct, escalating carbon tax at source; then 3rd and lastly, the *real* problem is *reducing* CO2! - which implies less fossil-carbon (in Aus' case, mainly gas & coal) mining. Playing politics is one thing (Libs/the baddies drive this; recall Newton's 2nd law: "Push begets shove!") - but time is getting tight; time to get it right!

To NO MORE WAR we can add NO MORE CO2!


Musing: The 'deal' that COP15 'noted' was «the new international deal brokered by the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa». (They tried to sneak that 'deal' past the normal UN process.) Do we wonder why Aus didn't get onto that broker-list?

Further, the 'sneaked' deal has nothing but rubbery figures in it; i.e. no *formal, legally-binding* targets.

Q: Why (the bloody-hell) not?


  1. Accusations/excuses:

    December 20, 2009 by Inter Press Service
    Climate Summit: History Was Not Made
    by Stephen Leahy
      «COPENHAGEN - There is no Copenhagen climate treaty. History was not made here and no deal was sealed.
    "The U.S. is not legally bound by anything that took place here in Copenhagen," Obama was careful to point out.»

    Comment: Piker. Since the US agreed to nothing (and its Senate is on record as saying they never will vis-à-vis CO2 reductions), Ramb-0-Bama's words ring more hollow than usual - if such a thing is at all possible.

    Britain blames China for Copenhagen 'farce'
    Posted December 22, 2009 07:29:00
      «While Mr Brown refrained from naming countries, his climate change minister Ed Miliband said China had led a group of countries that "hijacked" the negotiations which had at times presented "a farcical picture to the public".» 

    Comment: Too late, mate. Far too late for the melting Arctic/glacier ice; the low-lying countries etc..


    The question I have, is this; Q: What *punishment* do these (utterly failing!) so-called 'leaders' richly deserve, and who will arrange the ahhh - err, hangings?

  2. Accusations/excuses (cont):

    Wong rules out ETS deal with Greens
    Posted December 22, 2009 09:13:00
      «Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has ruled out negotiating with the Greens, as the Federal Government faces an uphill battle to make its emissions trading scheme (ETS) a reality.
    And business is ramping up its demand for more assistance and an emissions reduction limit of just 5 per cent by 2020.»
    [AusBC/Alexandra Kirk for AM]

    Comment: 'Business' has nothing to say about 'saving the planet;' their self-proclaimed single compulsion is to maximise shareholder value, and the world be damned.

    The job of saving the planet is a responsibility of our so-called *representatives,* and especially so, the so-called '*leaders*' of those representatives. We the sheople can only influence anything by our consumption patterns; we should move to buying the absolute least soonest, and targeting environmental 'sinners' for lesser-buying, and other sorts of sinners, like the war criminal US & Z-land for zero-buying boycotts.

    Developing nations 'resisted' climate deal
    Posted December 22, 2009 16:48:00
      «"The undertakings that we made in the Government's statement in May of this year in the range of 5, 15, 25 [per cent] are entirely consistent with 2 degrees centigrade as a target," he said.» 

    Comment: Including the swipe at 'developing nations,' more China-bashing. A range like "5, 15, 25 [per cent]" cannot be "consistent with 2 degrees centigrade as a target" - if the lower would do it, why give a higher range, and if the upper-bound would be required, why give lower targets at all? The target to save Tuvalu et al. is 350ppm/1.5 °C, any average-temperature rise over that will eventually mean widespread flooding (estimated 145mio victims, just for the 1st metre of sea-level rise.)


    This is not leadership, but follow-ship. The whole thing is humbug (humbug —n. 1 lying or deception; hypocrisy [POD]); IF something is worth doing THEN it's worth doing properly - or not at all. Not enough action here is more than enough to cause total disaster.

  3. Accusations/excuses (3rd)

    .. a quickie ...

      .. more if/when ...

        .. time & tide allows


    Three articles for consideration:

    1. India, China cooperated to torpedo climate deal
    Posted December 23, 2009 07:42:00
      «India has confirmed it worked with China and other emerging nations to ensure there were no legally binding targets from the Copenhagen climate talks.» 
    [AusBC/South Asia correspondent Sally Sara]

    Comment 1: One point of my comments here is to point out how naming & blaming can be v.destructive, but they just don't stop. One BIG problem for the US, UK & Aus is that they all have 'form;' as illustrated by their filthy lies leading up to Iraq (illegal invasion thereof), sooo their credibility is 'highly suspect,' shall we say. This 'telling tales out of school' is therefore doubly dangerous; we can't believe anything the US, UK or Aus say, and then slagging China off? Stand by for blow-back.

    Comment 2: Recall that as cited in my headline article, that the 'deal' that COP15 'noted' was «the new international deal brokered by the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa», and Ramb-0-Bama boasted that «"The U.S. is not legally bound by anything that took place here in Copenhagen," Obama was careful to point out.» Taking the two together would place the US on the torpedo-team, especially since the so-called 'Copenhagen Accord' was cobbled together outside the standard UN process.

    2. Eyewitness: How China sabotaged climate talks
    Posted December 23, 2009 14:34:00
      «"We can be satisfied that we were able to get our way on this issue," declared Mr Ramesh, who has consistently said India would be one of the countries hardest hit by climate change.
    He said India, China, South Africa and Brazil had emerged as a powerful force and said the group had protected its right to continued economic growth.
    Mr Ramesh said India would continue to work with its allies "to ensure that the interests of developing countries and India in particular are protected in the course of negotiations in 2010 and beyond".»

    Comment 1: 'Continued economic growth' means continued CO2 emission growth; exactly NOT what this conference was purportedly about.

    Comment 2: The 'best' I have found so far is that Ramb-0-Bama went to the conference with a 'promise' to cut 17% from 2005 figures (laughably insignificant), and that *NO* promise from him can ever be effective without the US Senate approval, AND that senate is stuffed with climate-deniers. IF the US can't/won't take the lead and deliver significant cuts THEN the entire 'game' is lost; doesn't matter what China or anyone else does or doesn't do: it's Polar/glacier ice-melt time, big time.

  4. Accusations/excuses (3rd cont.)

    3. Wong satisfied with India's climate position
    Posted December 23, 2009 16:14:00
      «"The Indians are articulating a position that's their national position.
    "We've made our position clear - we wanted more, we think what we got was a step forward and we are pleased that China and India have not only agreed to act, but are willing to be accountable for their action."»

    Comment 1: Wong's statements do not accord with my citation #2 wherein 'the group had protected its right to continued economic growth,' hardly a commitment to cut CO2. Also in #2, if China will not allow outside scrutiny, how can that be termed accountable?

    Comment 2; Q: If India ... torpedoed the deal, Why is Wong satisfied with India?