Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » Carbon Cops: Educate or Else

Carbon Cops: Educate or Else

Back in the vainglorious days of Bjelke-Petersen’s reign in Queensland there was a joke going around about how they tried to circumcise Sir Joh, but they couldn’t.

‘There was no end to the prick’.

Perhaps it’s time to rewrite that joke for Joolia’s Labor Party. With eighteen months or less to an election, at which they are on notice to a hiding, it is surely an act of bastardry to continue with programs that will be dismantled upon their losing office.

These programs include the establishment of the useless Flannery Centre, a $7.5 million
investment in regional Australia with a ‘distinctly green agenda’.

Designed to do what?

According to the website,

The centre’s main function will be to educate and empower individuals, workers and business people with the necessary skills and knowledge to cope with the challenges of the twenty-first century, challenges such as climate change, peak oil, population growth, biodiversity decline, water scarcity and pollution.

Yep, I know plenty of ‘individuals, workers and business people’ crying out for government guidance on how to deal with ‘climate change, peak oil, population growth, biodiversity decline, water scarcity and pollution.’

Down at my local, that’s all they talk about.

‘Why won’t the government help me deal with peak oil?’

‘Another schooner thanks Mac, oh and why won’t the government allow me? I’m so worried about population growth.’

Yes, these are the important questions being asked across the nation.

Apparently, the Flannery Centre will do this through very practical measures – such as regular events and exhibitions.

Yep, that’s practical.

In other words, a complete waste of time.

Although the Flannery Centre isn’t quite ready to deliver ’empowerment and education’, the Gillard government is forging ahead, wasting our money in other ways. With the very unpopular carbon tax about to become law, Labor hasn’t been tardy. They’ve foreseen that businesses may have a problem with their increased costs, and may even pass them on to their customers.

Fortunately, the profligate Gillard regime has come up with a solution.

At extreme cost to the taxpayer, they have established the ‘Carbon Cops’. These carbon cops, who have been trained to sniff out any resistance to the new ‘carbon price’, will turn up at your workplace at a minute’s notice should you mention that the price of your goods has gone up due to the carbon tax.

As this is such arduous work, Joolia has rented these fellows a new building to relax in after their carbon sniffing is over for the day. It’s a bargain really, only twice the price of their previous rental, and with the added advantage of it being a five year lease.

Bugger that Labor will be turfed out in eighteen months, but what the heck, let Tony deal with that, he can pay the lease, what do they care?

I mean, it’s a steal at $15,000 per employee. Yep, a steal from the taxpayer. Thanks, Labor.

Advertisements

17 Comments

  1. Richard Ryan says:

    ‘ There was no end to the prick’ I like that one Iain,

  2. Damian says:

    You may not be one of them, GD, but there are plenty of ‘individuals, workers and business people’. Take Marius Kloppers, for example.

    Apart from that, congratulations on completely misunderstanding the clean energy legislative package and for forgetting that much of the groundwork for this initiative was put in place during the last Coalition government.

    You play dumb well. You play dishonest even better. Welcome to the cesspit!

  3. Iain Hall says:

    Damian

    Firstly I’ll give you fair warning that I won’t tolerate you referring to this blog with derogatory terms as you do in your comment above. In future you will find such comments deleted or edited.

    Now to the substance of your comment, GD’s post is about the Flannery centre and other attempts to enforce the government line on Climate change rather than the “clean energy legislative package”.
    I always welcome guest posts so if you want to write one about the ah hem “benefits” of the “clean energy legislative package” then you are welcome to do so and I will happily put it up for the enjoyment of my readers.

  4. Richard Ryan says:

    Watching Bob Katter on ABC—sounds like a fair dinkum bloke.

  5. Richard Ryan says:

    YEAH! Bob Katter for PM.

  6. Richard Ryan says:

    Keeps on talking about read his book—–what is the name of his book?——will buy it.

  7. alan says:

    “Firstly I’ll give you fair warning that I won’t tolerate you referring to this blog with derogatory terms as you do in your comment above. In future you will find such comments deleted or edited.”

    i think i’ll rename you,….how does iain ‘precious’ hall sound?!

  8. Iain Hall says:

    Read my comment policy Alan

  9. alan says:

    So I read your policy for some reason I don’t know myself.
    Anyway, I hereby declare that it is my solemn duty to inform you that you have a nasty habit of spelling ‘actually’ as ‘actaully’.
    Duty done!!
    good afternoon.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    As unfortunate as any typos are there is actually nothing “nasty” about making them 😉

  11. GD says:

    You play dumb well.

    Damian, I’d suggest that you’re the one who is ‘dumb’, although don’t lefties call that ‘intellectually challenged’ or some other such nonsense?

    As Iain points out, I was addressing the policing of the ‘mention’ of the carbon tax on invoices. The fact that the carbon tax will increase prices after the 1st of July is a given, yet the benefits thereof are non-existant. While your brain-washed self believes that this tax will somehow change the climate, create new jobs and drive innovation shows just how out of touch from reality you are.

    A quick look overseas shows a winding back, or failure, of ‘green programs’. While South Korea and China pay lip service to emissions reductions, China increases its coal consumption, particularly with imports from Australia, on a continuing basis.

    To imagine that India and China, the world’s largest populations, will wind back development until the perpetual wind machine is invented is absurd. They will continue to use coal, and use it voraciously. And Australia will continue to supply that coal, and the Carbon Tax will do nothing other than emasculate local business and industry, while propping up the government with a windfall to offset their obscene deficit profligacy.

  12. I’m amazed that we’re still debating the science behind climate-change. All credible scientists agree that the earth is warming and that industrialisation is the cause of it. What exactly we should do about it is, of course, open to debate, but we really do need to accept that human activity is playing havoc with our climate, and in some cases it will completely change how communities operate. Fact.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Nigel
    The debate pertaining to the carbon tax rally has little to do with “the science” its all about it being an entirely ineffectual method of “addressing the problem*” its just a huge money churn and disguised example of socialist wealth redistribution. But the worst thing is that it will make so much of our economy less competitive internationally.

    Ray

    Quite frankly, it’s a bit rich to point the finger at Labor when what we’ve seen since Abbott lost the last election is every dirty trick in the book employed in order to bring down the government .. even (possibly) colluding with Ashby to get rid of the Speaker. Pot … kettle ….

    If Labor are the Paragons of p9olitical virtue that you see them as then they should be setting a better example and If they are lust talking tough to shore up support among the far left then aren’t they just lying once again if they end up doing the right thing,by accepting the validity of the coalition mandate in the aftermath of the thrashing that they are facing at the next election?

    * For the sake of argument I am looking form the point of view of a Believer in AGW

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    No, Iain, Labor are not ‘paragons of virtue’, nor are they just shoring-up support from the far left. They are just trying to win voters over – that’s what political parties do. As for “lying” (if that’s what you want to call it), I think the coalition is fairly practised in that ‘art’ too. Do you seriously expect the government to come out now, while they still hold office and while the next election is well over 12 months away, and say, “oh look, if we are f*ckin’ anihilated at the next election we will of course ‘do the right thing’ and vote in favour of Abbott’s repeals”? That’s akin to conceding defeat before the race is even run. This whole angle from your young (and seemingly naive & immature) fellow RW blogger reminds me of a storm. In. A. Tea. Cup.

  15. Damian says:

    Iain, your response to Nigel demonstrates your poor grasp of what emissions trading schemes are intended for.

    In order to avoid uncontrolled and dangerous changes in the global climate system, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from industry and agriculture must be slowed before it meets a threshold. In other words, the world has a quota that it must live within. Each country therefore has a responsibility to cap or reduce its greenhouse emissions so that the global aggregate does not exceed the threshold amount.

    Emissions trading schemes are designed to provide a market solution to the challenge of limiting the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They are market-based, Iain. Which is why the Howard government proposed an emissions trading scheme and set legislation in place to lay the foundations for what we have today. Indeed, John Howard envisaged a trans-Tasman scheme that involved Australia and New Zealand in a single emissions market.

    If the debate has strayed from the scientific basis for the design of financial systems that incentivise good environmental practices, it’s because experts like yourself (and those you read and quote) throw around phrases like “socialist wealth redistribution”.

    I don’t expect you to read this and suddenly comprehend what you clearly don’t understand already. In fact, if you get the message from this comment I am certain that you’ll refuse to acknowledge it anyway. That’s the problem with this “debate”. Still, I’ve tried to explain it clearly because it feel it’s important enough to do so.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    Damian

    Iain, your response to Nigel demonstrates your poor grasp of what emissions trading schemes are intended for.

    I understand perfectly well the theory of emissions trading schemes what I question and sincerely doubt is that such things can actually work in the real world.

    In order to avoid uncontrolled and dangerous changes in the global climate system, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from industry and agriculture must be slowed before it meets a threshold.

    To be honest Damian your position is terribly overloaded with unfounded assumptions that are just not supported by the empirical evidence. What is thsi threshold that you invoke and why do you believe that it should not be breached?

    In other words, the world has a quota that it must live within.

    Says who and why do you trust this Profit?

    Each country therefore has a responsibility to cap or reduce its greenhouse emissions so that the global aggregate does not exceed the threshold amount.

    Really? on what basis do you make this claim?

    Emissions trading schemes are designed to provide a market solution to the challenge of limiting the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They are market-based, Iain. Which is why the Howard government proposed an emissions trading scheme and set legislation in place to lay the foundations for what we have today. Indeed, John Howard envisaged a trans-Tasman scheme that involved Australia and New Zealand in a single emissions market.

    Do you think that invoking John Howard is going to convince me because I am a conservative? Because if you think that then you are wrong. My objection to carbon taxes and emission trading schemes is based upon the understanding that they can never make a difference at a global level and that all that they will do is create opportunities for spivs and shysters to make money at the expense of everybody else who will have to pay for them through more expensive energy costs. This is just a Ponzi scheme sponsored by the government.

    If the debate has strayed from the scientific basis for the design of financial systems that incentivise good environmental practices, it’s because experts like yourself (and those you read and quote) throw around phrases like “socialist wealth redistribution”.

    Mate, If Gillard was fair dinkum about doing something just “for the climate” it would be far more effective to mandate greater energy efficiency by legislation than to create a huge bureaucratic monster in the guise of an “ETS /Carbon tax

    I don’t expect you to read this and suddenly comprehend what you clearly don’t understand already. In fact, if you get the message from this comment I am certain that you’ll refuse to acknowledge it anyway. That’s the problem with this “debate”. Still, I’ve tried to explain it clearly because it feel it’s important enough to do so.

    I suspect that you have great faith in the profits of the Green religion because their liturgy is broadly consistent with your own socialist ideology (anti industry and large scale industrial agriculture)but if you take the time to look beyond the theory and ask the simple question about how effective the proposed “cures” will actaully be you might just see that even if the theory of AGW is correct the proposed panacea is little more than an expensive placebo.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: