How is Australia a Democracy? I never agreed to shutting down the renewable energy industry.
But fucking Dimwit Abbott, decided that it's what he and his palm greasing coal shovelling buddies wanted, so he says, lying every step of the way, "We think the renewable energy target is bullshit - so we are going to slash it to a 5% reduction instead of 20%, and global warming is bullshit, so we are going to kill off the RET, and ignore the global warming..."
He said it, I didn't.
I wasn't even ever asked, much less got to vote on it.
Nor did anyone else - when all of us said we want it.
But Dopey Joe spat out some retarded crap about wind turbines being as blasphemous as anal sex - with your self.
And the Abbott Government's Advisory Committee spake thus.
However the rest of the world, which was not filled with dick brain delights said otherwise.
And instead of investing heavily in turning Australia into a HUGE power generating and exporting country - freckle face adopts the "We will cut our pollution - only if you cut yours" brinkmanship bullshit....
I mean I have the technology to do it and it's SO easy, to generate vast amounts of power... and it's SO low tech.... and it's self multiplying and it integrates with everything......
I am not saying "Fuck Solar Panels" - but I can pull about 8,000,000,000KW per Sq Km and it's dead easy.... multiple arrays of 100m2 spread all around the country and a NATIONALISED power grid, instead of the privatised pirates running it now.....
We could be paying 5 - 8c a Kwh instead of these thieves charging 45c Kwh..
Or the exact opposite of renting the country we own.
But here is the international perspective on Abbott's idiot antics.
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2015-04-20/china-brazil-question-whether-australias-emissions-reduction-targets-are-ambitious-enough/1438710
China, Brazil question whether Australia's emissions reduction targets are ambitious enough
Updated 20 April 2015, 13:05 AEST
China and Brazil have questioned whether Australia's 5 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020 is ambitious enough. (Credit: Reuters)
Documents from the United Nations show Australia has been asked 36 questions about its 2020 emissions targets from China, the United States, the European Union, Brazil, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia.
It is part of the United Nations' Multilateral Assessment process, which aims to transparently compare the emissions reduction efforts of developed nations.
Currently, Australia's 2020 target is a 5 per cent reduction on greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 levels – a level questioned by Brazil.
"Considering the low level of ambition presented until now, as well as the historical data, does Australia intend to change its unconditional target in order to increase its level of ambition?" Brazil asked.
The Federal Government has said in the past it would consider increasing the 2020 target to 15 per cent or 25 per cent depending what the rest of the world does.
"Australia further indicated that the 15 per cent and 25 per cent conditional targets are based on the level of international action, especially from advanced economies," China said.
"This ambition level is far below the requirement that Australia set out for advanced economies.
"Please clarify the fairness of such requirements."
John Connor from The Climate Institute said Australia's policies were taking criticism, both directly and in a veiled way.
"Australia has had more questions asked of it than any other nation," he said.
"It's fair to say there's been some serious questions about both the adequacy of the [2020] target that it's choosing and also of the polices now that we've moved away from a price and limit on carbon pollution."
Results of first ERF auction to be released this week
Other nations asked whether the Federal Government's $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) would meet the 5 per cent 2020 target.The first ERF auction was held last week, amid doubts from analysts over whether the scheme would work.
The results of that first auction will be released this week, and given Australia has met its international commitments in the past, the Government remains confident.
The United States questioned if the ERF was the only measure being implemented to replace Australia's now-scrapped emissions trading scheme (ETS).
"Will the Emissions Reduction Fund constitute the primary measure implemented to replace the ETS, or are other significant policies and measures being contemplated?" the US asked.
The EU wanted more information to find out if the ERF could be used to meet a possible 15 per cent or 25 per cent target by 2020.
Australia has two months to respond to the questions as of March 31.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt is currently on leave and was unavailable for interview.
Five per cent target 'inadequate' and 'irrelevant'
The Government is deciding more than just the 2020 targets.Australia is in the process of setting its targets for beyond 2020, which will be negotiated in Paris in December.
The ABC revealed last week that the French Government is urging Australia to take a strong and ambitious position to the Paris meeting.
The Federal Government has vowed to release its planned targets by the middle of the year.
The Climate Institute's John Connor said many other major emitters had already announced their targets.
"Other countries are already putting up significant reductions – the US off the same 2000 base year would be doing around 30 per cent by 2025," he said.
"You've got Europe proposing 40 per cent off similar levels by 2030."
"So the 5 per cent is not only inadequate in terms of comparison with other international action elsewhere, it's irrelevant when it comes to the ambition that is needed beyond 2020."
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/abbott-govt-grilled-over-climate-policy/story-e6frfku9-1227311304748
Australia's climate policy questioned
- 2 hours ago April 20, 2015
PLEASE explain.
THAT'S what the world's largest polluters like China, the United States and Brazil are saying to Australia over its direct action plan to cut carbon emissions.In climate questions submitted to the United Nations, the nations query whether Australia can meet its five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020 and why the country isn't doing more.
China accuses Australia of unfairly expecting other advanced nations to set more ambitious targets than it has itself, directly asking the government to "clarify the fairness of such requirements". Beijing also asks if direct action's centrepiece - a $2.55 billion emissions reduction fund - will do enough to compensate for scrapping the carbon tax.
The US asks if the government plans to compliment to scheme with other policies. There's nothing unusual about countries asking each other questions on climate policy.
The process was put in place last year to assess post-2020 targets in the lead up to the UN climate conference in December. But the Climate Institute says the questions show both "direct and veiled" criticism and clearly suggest Australia's major trading partners aren't convinced about direct action. "The questions indicate a high level of scepticism on the effectiveness of the government pollution policies," CEO John Connor said.
The US and China last year brokered an unprecedented deal which requires the US to slash emissions by 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2025 and China to peak emissions by 2030.
The Abbott government is yet to develop post-2020 emissions targets but has consistently said it would only do its fair share in line with trading partners. Australia also agreed to a conditional target of 15 to 25 per cent based on "international action", a term China now wants specifically explained.
Several of the 36 questions, which Australia has two months to answer, point to inconsistencies in information. Direct action is in its infancy, with the first auction of the emissions reduction fund completed last week, however the environment department has admitted it has no modelling to show how much the policy will reduce emissions.
Critics say it won't reach the target on its own. Labor - the creators of the scrapped carbon tax - expected the Abbott government's "weak stance" on climate change and "woeful polluters' slush fund" to be called into question. "Tony Abbott is dishing out billions in tax payers' money to big polluters," environment spokesman Mark Butler said.
Comment has been sought from Environment Minister Greg Hunt's office. SOME QUESTIONS ASKED OF AUSTRALIA
*US Will the emissions reduction fund constitute the primary measure implemented to replace the emissions trading scheme, or are other significant policies and measures being contemplated?
*BRAZIL Considering the low level of ambition presented until now, as well as the historical data, does Australia intend to change its unconditional target in order to increase its level of ambition?
*CHINA The emission level increased by 31 per cent in 2012, compared to that in 1990, excluding the land-use sector. Please provide further information regarding the major contributing sectors and corresponding regulation measures.
*CHINA The Clean Energy Future Plan set out a number of PaMs to achieve the five per cent emission reduction target in 2020. However, emissions trading scheme and carbon farming initiative, as two core elements of this plan, have been replaced by the emissions reduction fund. Will it be enough to compensate for what was included in ETS and CFI?
*CHINA Australia proposed a conditional target of 15 per cent or 25 per cent based on the level of international action. Please define the term international action specifically.
*EUROPEAN UNION Could Australia provide information on the anticipated mitigation potential of the emissions reduction fund to meet the two conditional more ambitious emission reduction targets? (Source: UNFCCC)
Comments
Post a Comment