In a recent news piece on the Nine Network, former Australian Treasury head Ken Henry told the nation that the Australian economy will likely suffer more under the federal government’s proposed direct action climate plan than it would under an emissions trading scheme.
Henry stated that, “Tackling that issue through any mechanism other than an emissions trading scheme will necessarily be more damaging on the Australian economy.”
More damaging? The ABC had Chris Bowen (Shadow Treasurer) on this morning to explain Labor’s take on Ken Henry’s remarks (it was a Dorothy Dixer to have him on). I agree with them that Direct Action is a horrendous waste of money and misguided.
Yet I disagree with them on this, with regards to the golden calf: Climate Change.
What exactly would Australia do that would have any effect on the climate? It is the highest form of hubris to believe that the little things we do will change the weather. The energy equation is such that, to achieve the stated aims of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, not only does Australia have to reduce its own emissions, but it has to ensure that consumption is reduced too, lest we simply export those emissions to the world’s factory, China. This is until we have a cheap 24/7 baseload power source that can replace coal.
We get others to wash our clothes white by sending our laundry to developing economies.
Both the Emissions Trading Scheme and Direct Action are a genuflection to the golden calf- the new religion of our age. Politicians must bow before it, lest they commit political suicide by “denying” that the climate changes (derp derp, the climate is always changing, nice way of having an eachway bet!). The science has been politicised to fit a result to the observation, rather than the other way around, to continue the funding train. Australian industries have been sacrificed to the new idol because of the increased incurred cost of expensive energy- Alcoa, Holden, Ford, Toyota, 5000 QANTAS jobs, despite Labor support for these industries (paying taxpayer subsidies to prop up the damage done) and the Green’s talk of mythical “green jobs”. The carbon tax is working very effectively to reduce emissions by reducing industry and exporting Australian jobs to cheaper places.
To take direct action or to implement an emissions trading scheme is like deciding whether to destroy one’s house with a chainsaw or gasoline. Do we need to sacrifice Australian industry to the new green god? Will the sacrifice actually change the temperature, or are we simply exporting our emissions and prosperity elsewhere?
Are Labor and Liberals so busy genuflecting and agreeing that the emperor’s new clothes are great?
All of this happening when there has been no statistically significant rise in the atmospheric temperature for seventeen years, despite an exponential increase in the emissions of greenhouse gasses. The climate scientists who agree with AGW are now contending that the heat is “hiding in the sea where they cannot measure it.”
This is madness and unreasoned. For this golden calf, I am a Catholic, and do not worship idols. I’ll let you have your green religion, if you let me have mine. Don’t expect me to bankroll yours.
The post Emissions Trading Scheme vs Direct Action: Tackling the Golden Calf appeared first on Controversial News, Controversial Current Events | Intentious the Internet's Home of Controversial News.