"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Gillard : Pandora's Box is now Open!

Julia Gillard has now passed the point of no return as the Carbon Tax passes from a fuzzy feel-good concept to a major tax on everything. Journalists can smell blood and are circling like a pack of sharks around her ,now asking the hard questions.

Niki Savas compares it with the introduction of the GST and the problems Howard faced.

 Julia Gillard should spend more time boning up on what used to be known as her carbon tax rather than trying to rewrite history or weaving her way through a novel political strategy of saving the worst 'til last.
Like Prince, who switched his identity to an obscure symbol, then became an acronym (The Artist Formerly Known As Prince), the TPMFKAJ performs as if she can recast her words and self at will, because people are either so dim they will not notice or so tolerant they will cut her some slack.
Wrong. Unbelievably, inexplicably, inexcusably wrong.
It is dangerously close to "too late now", but her best hope for recovery lies in delivering a credible package, forgetting about spin and trickery, and making sure she knows its contents and ramifications backwards, given that twice in two days she fluffed her lines on the extent of the compensation, then was uncertain about when it would kick in.
At some point, the Prime Minister will be asked to say which of the many items on supermarket shelves will be dearer and which cheaper. Some people will genuinely want to know, others will be testing her knowledge of her own policy, and others still just how frank she is prepared to be about the consequences of what used to be called, and now is again, her carbon tax.
The vital question of how much difference this tax will make on the global temperature is now finally being asked by  journalists other than Andrew Bolt and there is no good answer the Government can give.
Yesterday, warmist journalist Lenore Taylor twice asked Prime Minister Julia Gillard to at least explain how much the world would warm even if we did all she asked. .
And the non-answers she got were not just an insult to Taylor and to all voters, but a partial admission of the utter futility of Gillard’s planned tax:

TAYLOR: Prime Minister, you were talking about the increase in the (inaudible) outside the atmosphere that has already occurred, scientists are also talking about the fact that even if we meet our targets, even if all the other countries meet their targets that they’ve got on the table, that increase will continue to go on. So, what’s your best advice on how far are things going to go in the red anyway, and how much are temperatures going to rise anyway, even if we do what we say and everyone else does what they’re saying as well?
PM: Well, the aim here, of course, is to prevent the continued growth of carbon pollution and its impact on climate change. You’re right – a lot of damage has been done already. We can’t go back into the past and fix that damage. What we can do is we can change our future, and I’m certainly saying to the Australian community we need to change our future and we can change our future through a scheme that protects Australian jobs, where households – 9 out of 10 – have got the benefit of tax cuts or payment increases, and we have the 1,000 biggest polluters in this country paying a price for carbon pollution so they innovate and change, and all of that adds up to a clean energy future.
TAYLOR: The question is, you’ve warned about what will happen if we don’t do anything, but how much of that warming is already in system? how much (inaudible) about even if we take all the actions that you’re talking about?
PM: Well, obviously, having gone to 387 parts per million in late 2010 – yes, you’re right that carbon dioxide’s already in the atmosphere, but I don’t believe that you can use that and say ‘well, we shouldn’t act in the future.’ Of course we should act. We can make a choice between a future with increased levels of dangerous climate change, or we can act to address that. I’m for action.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, you said that you want the debate to be informed by facts, but twice there Lenore asked you what your advice was one the net effect of our action, taking into account action or lack of action in the rest of the world. Will you provide that fact?

 We’re one of the 20 biggest polluters on the planet. Per head of population, we are the biggest generator of carbon pollution per head of population in the developed world. That means we have to act.

Is the rest of the world acting? Well, we’ve been through those facts and figures before, and I’m happy to supply them all again, but, yes, the rest of the world is also acting on climate change and we can’t afford to be left behind.
I consider Gillard’s answers to be so evasive as to be dishonest. You are being deliberately deceived. The sacrifice Gillard is demanding of you - of your money and perhaps your job - will achieve nothing at all to stop the predicted warming. And it will not slow that warming either, which is my point, and the answer to my own question

To remind you of one Gillard minister, Mark Dreyfus, who let slip the truth to blog reader Mark, who’d asked: 
Can you provide details on how much the global temperature will drop with the introduction of the this tax in 2020 (~5years)/ 2025 (~10years) /2065 (~50 years)?

1 comment:

  1. Yes sir plants need carbon as much as human needs air. Even more the main consumer of carbon is algae which lives in lakes, seas and oceans and other watered places, where they eat that thing and in return they produce massive amount of pure oxygen. So when you see the trees are cut, don't worry about loosing the plant which produce air, because algae is the main producer of this carbon. Trees is more worth to regulate temperature, if we want to have mild nights and not so hot days and conserve some water.