Hey, don’t buy it!

04 Jun

John Howard’s scare campaign, that is. I Journalspaced on this yesterday. Then note:

Prime Minister John Howard says Labor environment spokesman Peter Garrett supports a 20 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

“That’s pretty drastic and that would send the country into recession,” Mr Howard said.

On Macquarie Radio, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull attacked Labor for promising to cut its emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. “It is fanatically motivated*,” he said. “They are obsessed. It has become a new religion for them.”

Of course Peter Garrett ACTUALLY said something rather different to the lie Howard and company are currently peddling — and let me add I think the Labor Party are still out of date on nuclear energy, lest you think I agree with them on principle.

PETER GARRETT: Well I think the point about a target is, you’ve got to aspire to what, and respond to what, the scientists are telling us, and they are saying very clearly, and we heard it again yesterday from the scientific community, that significant cuts of emissions and a target for that is absolutely essential. I mean, that’s what the California’s got, that’s what the EU has got and I expect it’s what America, or most of the states in America, will have in the longer term as well.

LAURIE OAKES: Okay, well Labor seems to have set two targets, 20 percent emission cuts by 2020, and 60 percent by 2050. Now, how do you achieve those?

PETER GARRETT: Well, we haven’t committed to 20 percent by 2020 Laurie, what we’ve said is …

LAURIE OAKES: I thought you supported Sir Nicholas Stern the other day when he put that forward.

PETER GARRETT: Well, in terms of an aspirational target, it’s in the right area but I’m not saying that’s the figure that we would set at all, we haven’t set a figure for the 2020 target cut. But here’s how you’d achieve it. I mean, the first thing is that you’ve got a significant percentage of emission reductions that you can take from demand management and energy efficiency. Now, what the figure is, you know, different reports say but it’s somewhere in the 20-25-30 percent figure.

Sunday: Channel 9

Then see Insiders 3 June 2007.

…BARRIE CASSIDY: Minister, would you regard Arnold Schwarzenegger as a fanatic? He’s proposing 80 per cent by 2050 in California, a Republican Government?

MALCOLM TURBULL: I have great admiration for Governor Schwarzenegger but he has no idea how he will get that there. That is climate change Hollywood style. That is saying we’re going to have these targets set way into the future, long after Governor Schwarzenegger… Now the reality is that that is in effect, as it is for any state, something of a gesture because, Barrie, California buys – California can draw a line around its boundaries and say, you know, “We have so much emission,” but they buy a lot of their electricity from interstate. They buy electricity from another state which is emitting CO2 from the power station but they don’t count that CO2 in their own emissions.
See, this is the point about global warming. Consider this: natural gas, a vital part of the global mix because it results – you can produce electricity with lower emissions, so natural gas is good. Every time we export natural gas from Australia, we increase our emissions but if that gas is used to replace a coal-fired power station in China, it reduces China’s emissions. And so, you know, again, one of the absurdities of Labor’s policy is that it doesn’t take into account the global nature of the problem. So yes, we have to act but we have to act in a way that respects our economy, that doesn’t unduly or unfairly damage our economy and above all, engages in international action, and it’s not on their agenda.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Minister, this debate is creating some strange bedfellows, Peter Garrett and Arnold Schwarzenegger. We’ll move on…

I wish these people could forget for five minutes that they are politicians, don’t you?

* Try “scientifically motivated”. See Climate change — beyond John, Tim, Miranda — and even Al…

Irrelevant to the above

I really do commend a whole series of very thought-provoking posts on Marcel’s blog. You’d think he’d been blogging for years. 😉 And while you are at it, Thomas has written another very thorough entry on one of his great interests, US politics.

Site Meter



2 responses to “Hey, don’t buy it!

  1. marcellous

    June 4, 2007 at 10:00 pm

    That’s very kind of you, Neil. I’ve realised in my short time blogging that blogging has to be its own reward. Naturally, one craves attention, but the question of what posts actually receive attentive reading is mystifying, if sometimes predictably so. It should go without saying that a “hit” is not evidence of this, since, after all, searchers come for what they seek.

    For example, my great “sleeper” is my post “Never fall in love with a prostitute.” Today is typical. The search terms which have led people there are “how to make a prostitute fall in love” and “escorts fall in love with clients.” It should be obvious from the title to that post that neither of these people will have found what they were seeking. And almost nobody has clicked on the two links to real-life law cases ((lengthy but interesting, at least, I think) which involved that scenario.

    Another search term which led somebody to my blog today was “pedophile boys Asia.” I tried this today on google and yahoo, and if the person used either of these, all I can say is that they were much more determined than I was. I scrolled through many, many pages before I gave up on the chance of finding my blog.

  2. theportmaniac

    June 4, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    Score! One of my politics posts got recommended. Thanks for the props.

%d bloggers like this: