These are the questions that journalists should be asking of politicians
Your MP doesn’t ‘believe’ in climate change? Ask the tough questions, The Conversation, Brad Farrant, Fiona Armstrong, 
Karen Kiang, Mark G Edwards , 27 April 13, “….
we propose a series of questions that journalists (and the public) should be asking politicians on global warming, and how governments should respond to it.
- Are you aware that over 97% of climate scientists globally, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science and every major national science academy in the industrialised world (whose membership includes climate scientists) agree that the planet is warming, that the observed climate change is mostly human caused, and that if we continue with business as usual, harsh impacts and irreversible changes to the climate system will occur?
- Do you accept that the human population is making a substantial contribution to climate change via our greenhouse gas emissions? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify going against the scientific consensus?
- Is it your position that Australia and the rest of the world need to urgently adopt policies to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in line with scientific recommendations? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify rejecting the scientific consensus?
- Are you aware that the impacts of climate change in terms of increased risks to human health and climate change related deaths is already being measured by medical and public health professionals worldwide?
- Do you accept that anyone who argues that we continue with business as usual and emit greenhouse gases beyond levels that the consensus of climate scientists says is dangerous for humanity (and the ecological system on which humans depend) should bear the burden of proof to show that this is safe?
- Do you accept that, in light of the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the long-standing consensus of climate scientists, politicians have a responsibility to immediately implement strategies to prevent dangerous climate change?
- Given that climate scientists have been advising the urgent reduction of greenhouse gases for decades, do you accept that politicians who fail to implement policies to prevent dangerous climate change should be held responsible for harm that results from this inaction?
- Do you accept that climate change is occurring? If not, what specific scientific sources and references do you rely on to justify rejecting the scientific consensus? http://theconversation.com/your-mp-doesnt-believe-in-climate-change-ask-the-tough-questions-13432?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The+Weekend+Conversation&utm_content=The+Weekend+Conversation+CID_746b0f21860e09252d87a376993410ea&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Your%20MP%20doesnt%20believe%20in%20climate%20change%20Ask%20the%20tough%20questions
- We might ask politicians a few of these ourselves. Have a go yourself – and let us know how you get on. We’d be pleased to write about it.
Australia’s Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt talks nonsense on CEFC
CEFC may write financing contracts before July, REneweconomy By Giles Parkinson 26 April 2013 “…..Hunt’s big dodgy number games
Last Sunday, Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt appeared on the Bolt Report, the program hosted by noted climate skeptic and News Ltd journalist Andrew Bolt, complaining about the government’s“dodgy numbers” on its climate policy.
Hunt knows something about dodgy numbers. That’s how most experts describe his Direct Action policy, but on ABC Radio on Wednesday he came up with a new one when he said (unchallenged) that the CEFC would spend up to $240 million a day between July 1 until the writs for the election are issued in early August. Hunt was so satisfied with his statement that he tweeted it too.
Of course, it’s utter nonsense, as Hunt well knows. He arrives at that figure by dividing the $10 billion in funds the CEFC will have at its disposal over 5 years, by the number of days between July 1 and the election writs. But these funds are only allocated in $2 billion batches over 5 yeas, so even if the CEFC spent its entire 2013/14 budget is the first six weeks, it would be well short of Hunt’s number. But, the bigger the number, the bigger the scare.
And the CEFC is not likely to rush its entire funds out the door in one fell swoop. The CEFC can only be disbanded by an act of government, which makes it as easy, or as difficult, to unravel as the carbon price. Unless the Coalition gets a majority in the Senate, or the Labor rump rolls over, then the CEFC could continue for a while longer.http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/cefc-may-write-financing-contracts-before-july-28670
Abbott’s carbon tax policy doesn’t make sense – report finds
Report says Coalition carbon tax policy doesn’t add up http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/report-says-coalition-carbon-tax-policy-doesn-t-ad 3 April, 2013 Matt McDonald According to modelling by research group RepuTex, scrapping the carbon tax without implementing other industry changes would put a stop to investment in Australia’s renewable energy sector.
As SMH reports, if the Coalition wins the next election it plans to cut the carbon tax and retain the renewable energy target (RET).RepuTex’s associate director of research, Bret Harper says that the existence of the carbon tax is what makes renewable energy a viable investment option.
Without the tax $23 per tonne carbon price and the renewable energy certificate of about $32 per megawatt-hour, renewable energy is just not a realistic investment option.
“The carbon price is linked to the renewable energy target. For those who support the RET but not the carbon price, there’s a gap in the logic there,” Harper said.
Harper says that, given that the federal government has left the RET at 41,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity each year from 2020, between 2014 and 2020 the nation will need to increase its renewable energy capacity by about three times as much as it has in the past ten years.
So, if a future coalition government were to repeal the carbon tax it would also need to substantially increase the value of the renewable energy certificate to meet this ambitious RET. But as it stands, Coalition policy is to repeal the tax but leave other market conditions unchanged. “The existing scheme has a penalty price, which is effectively a price cap. If you remove the support of the carbon price but you don’t adjust the cap, then you will not see the renewable projects being built,” Harper said.
If Abbott scrapped carbon tax – a minefield of court action would follow!
Scrapping green bank would incur ‘huge cost’April 3, 2013 The Age Heath Aston Political reporter Tony Abbott’s ”pledge in blood” to scrap the carbon tax and dismantle the agency ploughing billions of dollars into renewable energy projects will cost taxpayers more in compensation and legal costs than the financial benefit of abolishing the system, it is claimed.
A report by law firm Norton Rose has highlighted the minefield of court action that would result from any move to wind up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The corporation, which has $10 billion to spend on renewables and energy efficiency programs over five years, is preparing to sign off on a first tranche of multi-year contracts to begin on July 1.
The Coalition has promised to abolish the corporation and tear up the contracts if it wins power in September.
The report found an Abbott government would be forced to retain the corporation or replace it with a new agency to oversee contracts it could not break. The opposition has not revealed exactly how it will abolish the clean energy contracts but has warned the industry that it intends to do so.
…… A spokeswoman for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation said it was obliged under legislation to push ahead with making investment decisions.
Confusion about carbon in Australia’s Liberal Party
Hockey rules out carbon tax compensation, The Age, March 6, 2013 Mark Kenny
Senior political correspondent Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey has again ruled out retaining Labor’s carbon tax compensation package, despite a Coalition source revealing similar measures will be taken to the election.
Mr Hockey said the Coalition remained committed to dumping the carbon tax and any sweeteners connected to it…. Mr Hockey’s comments suggested the Coalition was considering going to the election in September with a plan to increase taxes.
But they came on the same day Mr Abbott told a national newspaper that tax arrangements similar to Labor’s compensation package could continue. Mr Abbott said it should not automatically be assumed that the tax-free threshold, currently set at $18,200 in annual income, would be returned to its pre-carbon price level of $6000.
This raised the prospect of a Coalition government keeping part or all of the tax cut, even though Mr Hockey, who would be treasurer, appeared to rule that out completely. He claimed however that families would be better off though welfare payments and through tax cuts ”based on tax levels without the carbon tax”….
He said the Coalition’s expenditure review committee was working hard to identify savings from which to fund the competing tax cuts and assistance package.
Labor argues that the Coalition has no capacity to fund such measures, which are at present paid for by revenue from the sale of carbon permits.
Tony Abbott out to destroy Australia’s progress in climate change action
Australian climate outlook remains bleak with Tony Abbott out for revenge, Guardian UK by Alexander White 25 February 13 Australian elections on 14 September threaten a rollback of years of climate change progress. The time to act is now In Australia, decades of hard-fought conservation gains are at risk of being wiped out after 14 September. That’s when the incumbent Labor government faces oblivion at the federal election, at the hands of the conservative Liberal Party.
For environment groups and climate campaigners, things have never looked bleaker.
This is despite the introduction of a carbon price, billions of dollars for clean energy projects, a landmark extension of marine national parks, and recent news that carbon emissions from the world’s largest per- capita emitter have actually reduced.
Unfortunately, conservation and climate change have not been a national priority since the controversial introduction of the carbon price. In Australia, the Labor minority government, supported by the Greens , passed historic carbon-pricing legislation that charged polluters for their emissions.
At that time, the five or so largest environment groups, supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, ran a public awareness campaign – “Say Yes” – to raise support for the carbon price.
Since then, the conservative opposition, led by climate change denying Tony Abbott and supported by extreme elements in the Murdoch-owned press, has waged a relentless campaign against the carbon price.
The fear is that Abbott’s climate denialism, coupled with a desire to get even with groups who opposed him, will see environment groups targeted……The USA now has a revitalised climate movement. A new generation of activists, many of whom also campaigned alongside Obama 2012 organisers, continues their struggle to stop one of the most dangerous oil projects in the world.
In Australia, environment groups fearing the wrath of Tony Abbott, whose position on climate change matches the likes of Sarah Palin or Rick Santorum, must mobilise rather than remaining a small target.
The posture of this new breed of US climate activist is more assertive and aware of the great risks of doing nothing. And they have finally realised that to win, to have influence in the halls of power, you must have a willing, engaged constituency in the community – who are willing to take action….http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/feb/25/australia-climate-elections-new-strategy?fb=native
Christine Milne explodes Greg Hunt’s Liberal Coalition sham climate change action plan
Treasury has said that: “Direct Action measures alone cannot do the job without imposing significant economic and budget costs…Moreover, many of the direct action measures cannot be scaled up to achieve significant levels of abatement, and for those that can be scaled up, the cost per tonne of abatement would rise rapidly.
The Coalition cannot hide from the fact that Direct Action is a slogan, not a policy. It’s time that they were called out on it.”
Why Greg Hunt’s Direct Action policy is a sham http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/why-greg-hunts-direct-action-policy-is-a-sham-77552 By Christine Milne on 28 February 2013
“Let’s consider Mr Hunt’s Direct Action Plan. It’s a sham.
“This week the Coalition has been all over the shop. From “we will compensate businesses” from Joe Hockey and “we will not compensate businesses” from Tony Abbott and “we will impose penalties” from Abbott and “we don’t expect to” from Mr Hunt.
The world is on a trajectory of 4 degrees of warming. The fact that Direct Action cannot be scaled up, is only intended to reduce emissions by 5% and cannot effectively achieve more is its overwhelming and fundamental failure. Who in their right mind thinks that such a weak target in any way reflects the science?
At a time when we have IMF boss Christine Lagarde saying, “Unless we take action on climate change future generations will be roasted, toasted fried and grilled” to try to suggest that an Australian target of just -5% by 2020 is acceptable is a lie. As the rest of the world move towards a legally binding global treaty and the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, such a lax target will become untenable and indefensible.
To the detail of the plan, it is in essence a massive ‘competitive grant programme’ which seeks to reduce emissions by companies putting in ‘tenders’ for actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the government then paying those companies which submit the lowest bids (per tonne of abatement).
There are numerous fundamental problems, many of which, while widely understood are rarely discussed. For example:
1) The Coalition expects more than 60% of the abatement to come from soil carbon – but the science to back this up is not yet solid, so this abatement would not be recognised in international treaties. That’s a showstopper. Continue reading
Australia’s Liberal Coalition not likely to repeal carbon tax – “Abbott proof fence” around it
Libs carbon tax repeal ‘unlikely’
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/16259527/libs-carbon-tax-repeal-unlikely/
Andrew Probyn Federal Political Editor, The West Australian February
28, 2013, International and domestic investors in Australia are being
told there is only a one-in-three chance that Opposition Leader Tony
Abbott will be able to fulfil his “pledge in blood” to dump the carbon
tax.
In a briefing note sent to clients yesterday, Bloomberg Finance said
the Government had built a secure “Abbott-proof fence” around its
carbon tax legislation. Continue reading
Why the Australian Greens now dump their agreement with Labor (Video)
By choosing the big miners, the Labor government is making it clear to all that it no longer has the courage or the will to work with the
Greens on a shared agenda in the national interest.
By choosing the big miners, the Labor government is no longer honouring our agreement to work together to promote transparent and accountable government and the public interest or to address climate change……
(VIDEO) http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/christine-milne-addresses-national-press-club Christine Milne addresses the National Press Club 9 Feb 2013 | Christine Milne Australian Democracy at the Crossroads: The mining industry and the quarry past versus the people and the innovative future. Australian democracy is at the crossroads. Our future as a nation, our sense of who we are and what we want for our society and local community is now being determined by mining billionaires in boardrooms for themselves and their overseas shareholders, and what they want, is being delivered through our state and federal parliaments. …..
For Premier Colin Barnett to threaten indigenous communities with the compulsory acquisition of their land in the interests of Woodside is wrong and shameful…..
Trust has gone.
What we are seeing is the mining industry versus the community. The greed of billionaire miners versus the public interest. The ALP government and the Liberal 
and National Opposition lining up to protect the interests of the mining corporations against the interests of the Australian community. It is the Australian Greens who are standing with the people, for the environment and for a safe climate…….
the biggest opportunity cost of the mining industry in capturing the Labor party and the Liberal National Coalition is that they are all actively preventing the transition to the sustainable, secure, happy and prosperous society and the economic framework necessary to underpin it in a world on track for 4 degrees.
They still don’t get the fact that we live in a society not an economy and that economic tools driving the fossil fuel age have to change because they are not delivering what society wants. Instead, they have delivered market failure and accelerating global warming. As IMF boss Christine Lagarde said recently, “Unless we take action on climate change future generations will be roasted, toasted fried and grilled.”…..
If Australia continues down the path of massive coal and coal port expansion, we risk stranded assets, jobs collapse, dislocation on a grand scale and super funds losing badly……
Labor cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that they take the climate science seriously and at the same time subsidise massive mining and export of fossil fuels to the tune of $10 billion knowing that they are condemning our children and their grandchildren to a world of conflict, scarcity and climate disaster….But Tony Abbott and the Liberal National Coalition are right there beside the government backing these decisions and indicating they would go even further…..
How can PM Gillard or Tony Abbott pretend they care about food production and mouth support for the food bowl while destroying agricultural land and allocating vast quantities of ground water in the Murray Darling for coal seam gas?
….What we have got is the whole Labor cabinet and the entire Liberal and National parties prepared to ditch environmental regulation and hand it over to the states knowing full well that they cannot be trusted to look after the environment. The plan to hand back power to the states has gone quiet but it hasn’t gone away.
Without the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate Australia risks: Continue reading
An insightful interview with Julian Assange – Senate candidate for Australia’s 2013 election
Set aside the cheap diatribes and what you think of Julian Assange as a person, or whether he’s done this or not achieved that. The fact is that electoral victory for him later this year would be one of those rare political miracles that make life as a citizen worth living.
In a country weighed down by sub-standard politicians, sub-standard journalists and sub-standard freedom of information laws, the political triumph would be great. It would breathe badly-needed life into Australian democracy. And, yes, if the miracle happened, from that very moment the fun party down under would begin.
Lunch and dinner with Julian Assange, in prison, The Conversation, John Keane, Professor of Politics at Sydney University, 18 Feb 13, Everybody warned this would be no ordinary invitation, and they were right. Three hundred metres from Knightsbridge underground station, just a stone’s throw from fashion-conscious Harrods, I suddenly encounter a wall of police…..Through a set of double doors, I’m confronted by more police officers, this time armed, with meaner faces…… The silver-haired “high-tech terrorist” (Joe Biden’s description) appears quietly,…. Calm, witty, clear-headed throughout, he’s in a talkative mood. But there’s no small talk….
Tony Abbott’s Tea Party proposals in full swing
Abbott confirms his tea party connections http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/5-things-we-learned-this-week-about-tea-party-politics-22437 REneweconomy, Giles Parkinson, 1 Feb 13, We’ve been casting Tony Abbott in the role of Tea Party conservative for months now, fretting that he might somehow take offence. Not at all. The Opposition leader proudly told the Canberra press gallery in his stump speech on Thursday that he had hosted not one, not two, but 33 local morning teas with voters over the past year or so. And, by golly, he conceded, climate change is real and man may even be making a contribution towards it, which is why he is proposing something sensibly practical that the CWA would be proud of – organize a series working bee to pick up litter, build boardwalks, and plant trees. There will probably even be a BBQ.
Abbott did, of course, promise to repeal the carbon tax, saying his previous support for the measure was in the context of other countries doing the same. He insisted no other country is going “anywhere near” carbon taxes or trading schemes – apparently never having never heard of carbon taxes and ETS’s and pilot programs implemented and planned throughout the 27 states of Europe, Scandinavia, New Zealand, South Korea, China, California, a bunch of other American states and Canadian provinces, South Africa and Mexico. Not to mention Kazakhstan. And where did we find such subversive information? Well, Google would have done the trick, but most of it is contained in his own Direct Action policy. Here it is on page 9.
Tony Abbott selects anti-wind power, climate denialists, as top advisors
Abbott’s adviser hates wind farms, doubts climate change Crikey, TRISTAN EDIS | JAN 29, 2013 Tony Abbott’s latest Coalition policy statement remains short on climate policy detail. More worrying is his selection of a noted anti-wind farm advocate and climate change sceptic as lead business adviser.
Tony Abbott’s policy statement promised the direction, values and policy priorities of the next Coalition government. It contained no additional detail on climate change policy beyond what was outlined in the Coalition’s 2010 election policy, which was largely expected. But what was more unnerving was outlined under economic policy:
“We will establish a new Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council to advise the Executive Government on developing the economy. The Business Advisory Council will be chaired by leading Australian business leader Mr Maurice Newman.” ….
he [Newman] has also made a range of public statements that indicate his advice to Abbott will be detrimental to businesses focussed on clean energy and carbon abatement. On wind power, Newman wrote in the publication The Spectator on January 21 last year: Continue reading
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 