-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Pollie Watch: PM Abbott’s first comments on wind farms, Renewable Energy Target
Posted on November 12, 2013 by Leigh Ewbank 14
Tony Abbott has made his first comments on wind energy and the Renewable Energy Target as Prime Minister. During an interview with Alan Jones (2GB) PM Abbott had the following to say:
“If you drive down the Federal Highway from Goulburn to Canberra and you look at Lake George, yes there’s an absolute forest of these things on the other side of the lake near Bungendore. I absolutely understand why people are anxious about these things that are sprouting like mushrooms all over the fields of our country. I absolutely understand the concerns that people have.
“And I also understand the difficulty because while renewable power is a very good idea at one level, you’ve gotta have backups because when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, the power doesn’t flow. So this is an obvious problem with renewable energy in the absence of much more sophisticated battery technology than we have right now.
“We are going to review the Renewable Energy Targets. There was going to be a review anyway next year. We’re taking this review very seriously and one of the things that we’ll be looking at will be the impact of renewable energy on power prices, because not only is the carbon tax adding about 9 per cent to everyone’s power bills and we’re going to get rid of that as quickly as we can, renewable energy targets are also significantly driving up power prices right now.”
The Prime Minister cites two common misperceptions about renewables energy: Firstly, that renewables aren’t up for the job of powering the Australian economy because they’re intermittent. And secondly, that the Renewable Energy Target makes up a significant portion of electricity bills.
Let’s break down these misconceptions for the Prime Minister to assist his government’s energy policy making.
Misconception #1: Australia needs backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
Reality: It is technically feasible for Australia to meet it’s electricity needs from renewable energy alone.
According to the energy experts, shifting to 100 percent renewable energy is both technically viable and affordable. Studies by the think tank Beyond Zero Emissions (PDF), and follow up studies from the Australian Energy Market Operator (PDF) and University of New South Wales (PDF) confirm the technical feasibility of renewable energy. In terms of cost, the 100 percent renewable energy system is cheaper the fossil fuel based business-as-usual approach.
Modelling is one thing, what about real world applications?
South Australia is leading the nation with it’s renewable energy rollout. The state now meets 31 percent of it’s electricity demand from renewable energy sources. Wind farms are doing the heavy lifting, providing 27 percent, while the rapidly growing rooftop solar contributes 4 percent. South Australia is expected to reach 50 percent renewables in a decade.
Misconception #2: Renewable energy is a significant part of power bills, driving up costs.
Reality: John Howard’s Renewable Energy Target makes up a small portion of Australian power bills. The rollout of renewable energy is making power bills cheaper.
Data from the Australian Energy Market Commission (PDF) shows the RET accounts for less than two percent of the average household electricity bill – or a mere $35 from a $2000 bill. That’s around $0.70 each week over a year. It is transmission, distribution, and wholesale electricity prices which are the largest contributors to power bills.
The Australian Energy Market Commission shows transmission, distribution, and wholesale electricity prices are the largest contributors to power bills.
Renewable energy is putting downward pressure on power bills. Energy analysts agree wind farms are causing South Australia’s wholesale electricity prices to drop. This trend resulted in the SA Essential Services Commission directing energy companies to cut retail prices cut by 8.1 percent. The move will lower the average power bill by $160 a year.
So, what are Australians getting for their $35 investment in renewable energy? Cheaper bills, less pollution, and action on climate change. Most Australians would agree that’s a win, win.
Liberals can lead on renewable energy…
Prime Minister Tony Abbott can take leadership on renewable energy. The PM can back John Howard’s Renewable Energy Target, deliver more renewable energy and cheaper power bills for Australians.
Retired Liberal Senator for Tasmania, Peter Rae shows you can be a proud Liberal and a strong supporter of renewable energy. Mr Rae believes the Liberal party has a tradition to uphold when it comes to supporting renewable energy.
Mr Rae was vice president of the World Wind Energy Association (now honorary VP) and is Vice Chairman of the International Renewable Energy Alliance, REN21. With impeccable renewable energy credentials, Mr Rae knows what he’s talking about. Perhaps the PM will draw on the expertise of Peter Rae when undertaking a review of the Renewable Energy Target next year.
Posted on November 12, 2013 by Leigh Ewbank 14
Tony Abbott has made his first comments on wind energy and the Renewable Energy Target as Prime Minister. During an interview with Alan Jones (2GB) PM Abbott had the following to say:
“If you drive down the Federal Highway from Goulburn to Canberra and you look at Lake George, yes there’s an absolute forest of these things on the other side of the lake near Bungendore. I absolutely understand why people are anxious about these things that are sprouting like mushrooms all over the fields of our country. I absolutely understand the concerns that people have.
“And I also understand the difficulty because while renewable power is a very good idea at one level, you’ve gotta have backups because when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, the power doesn’t flow. So this is an obvious problem with renewable energy in the absence of much more sophisticated battery technology than we have right now.
“We are going to review the Renewable Energy Targets. There was going to be a review anyway next year. We’re taking this review very seriously and one of the things that we’ll be looking at will be the impact of renewable energy on power prices, because not only is the carbon tax adding about 9 per cent to everyone’s power bills and we’re going to get rid of that as quickly as we can, renewable energy targets are also significantly driving up power prices right now.”
The Prime Minister cites two common misperceptions about renewables energy: Firstly, that renewables aren’t up for the job of powering the Australian economy because they’re intermittent. And secondly, that the Renewable Energy Target makes up a significant portion of electricity bills.
Let’s break down these misconceptions for the Prime Minister to assist his government’s energy policy making.
Misconception #1: Australia needs backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
Reality: It is technically feasible for Australia to meet it’s electricity needs from renewable energy alone.
According to the energy experts, shifting to 100 percent renewable energy is both technically viable and affordable. Studies by the think tank Beyond Zero Emissions (PDF), and follow up studies from the Australian Energy Market Operator (PDF) and University of New South Wales (PDF) confirm the technical feasibility of renewable energy. In terms of cost, the 100 percent renewable energy system is cheaper the fossil fuel based business-as-usual approach.
Modelling is one thing, what about real world applications?
South Australia is leading the nation with it’s renewable energy rollout. The state now meets 31 percent of it’s electricity demand from renewable energy sources. Wind farms are doing the heavy lifting, providing 27 percent, while the rapidly growing rooftop solar contributes 4 percent. South Australia is expected to reach 50 percent renewables in a decade.
Misconception #2: Renewable energy is a significant part of power bills, driving up costs.
Reality: John Howard’s Renewable Energy Target makes up a small portion of Australian power bills. The rollout of renewable energy is making power bills cheaper.
Data from the Australian Energy Market Commission (PDF) shows the RET accounts for less than two percent of the average household electricity bill – or a mere $35 from a $2000 bill. That’s around $0.70 each week over a year. It is transmission, distribution, and wholesale electricity prices which are the largest contributors to power bills.
The Australian Energy Market Commission shows transmission, distribution, and wholesale electricity prices are the largest contributors to power bills.
Renewable energy is putting downward pressure on power bills. Energy analysts agree wind farms are causing South Australia’s wholesale electricity prices to drop. This trend resulted in the SA Essential Services Commission directing energy companies to cut retail prices cut by 8.1 percent. The move will lower the average power bill by $160 a year.
So, what are Australians getting for their $35 investment in renewable energy? Cheaper bills, less pollution, and action on climate change. Most Australians would agree that’s a win, win.
Liberals can lead on renewable energy…
Prime Minister Tony Abbott can take leadership on renewable energy. The PM can back John Howard’s Renewable Energy Target, deliver more renewable energy and cheaper power bills for Australians.
Retired Liberal Senator for Tasmania, Peter Rae shows you can be a proud Liberal and a strong supporter of renewable energy. Mr Rae believes the Liberal party has a tradition to uphold when it comes to supporting renewable energy.
Mr Rae was vice president of the World Wind Energy Association (now honorary VP) and is Vice Chairman of the International Renewable Energy Alliance, REN21. With impeccable renewable energy credentials, Mr Rae knows what he’s talking about. Perhaps the PM will draw on the expertise of Peter Rae when undertaking a review of the Renewable Energy Target next year.
Liverpool said:
longer than 12 months. sarcasm aside, I've addressed this repeatedly, and at length in previous debate and discussion on this thread. It must have made a big impact.
In a nutshell, the cumulative impacts of burning hydrocarbons for 250 years on a mass scale will take longer than 1 or 2 years to fix.
Liverpool said:
Why do you continue to pull the discussion back to your flawed conflation of what people and the science actually says? If your problem is the carbon price why then question the science? Question the policy without intentionally misrepresentating the state of the science. We've been over this too often for you to have still not got it. Individual events can not be taken on their own and absolutely no one has claimed that any one event was "caused" by climate change. Is it a factor? The best models say yes. There are grey areas but not about whether carbon pollution has an impact. It does. The incredibly complex chemistry of the entire atmoshere and biosphere and how they interact can't be summed up in a simpler way than has already been done. If you still don't get it that isn't because the science is wrong. It's because you either don't get it or don't want to.
tigersnake said:
KnightersRevenge said:
Ok...then what does the science say regarding climate change being reversed due to Australia introducing a carbon tax?
What timeframe has science given us?
Surely there would have been studies done and scientific research completed to justify the introduction of such a policy.
Liverpool said:
Good grief man you are something special. Read the tigersnake post you quoted out loud to yourself and then do the same with your first question. The scientsts do the science government does the policy. The government surely have a brace of scientists with bags of research for their superior "direct action" plan yes?
KnightersRevenge said:
The Government at the time have come up with a policy based on scientific estimates of what would happen to the planet if we don't act.
Its a simple question....the Government has acted by introducing a carbon tax....so when do we expect to see the global climate reverse due to the actions taken?
When will we see the fruits of our labor??
The idea of the carbon tax was to reverse or stop (or at the very least, slow down) climate change....surely the Government at the time didn't just make up a policy without having the research done as to when we expect to see it actually working.
Your answer should be a simple number denoting the years it will take (or at the very least, another scientific 'guesstimate') and a link from the source.
Thank you.
Tony Abbott joins The 7.30 Report
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 02/02/2010
Reporter: Kerry O'Brien
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott speaks with Kerry O'Brien live from Canberra.
Transcript
KERRY O’BRIEN: Coalition leader Tony Abbott joins me now from our Parliament House studio in Canberra.
Why isn't your new climate change policy a message to Australia's big polluters under an Abbott Government taxpayers will pay you to reduce your carbon pollution, you don't have to cop pain yourself.
TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: Well, under Mr Rudd's scheme taxpayers will pay because they are consumers, they'll pay a lot more, $120 billion over 10 years as opposed to $10 billion under our scheme.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Mr Abbott, you know that is not true because you have the tables that everyone is privy to that the Government released that shows that in 91 per cent of Australian households there'll be a net gain to the households by what the Government compensates them for for what they lost in increased prices.
TONY ABBOTT: I am not sure the Government has been quite as upfront and honest with publishing all its modelling as you suggest.
KERRY O’BRIEN: But equally, Mr Abbott, is it honest of you to say baldly, as you just did, that this entire cost of $100 billion plus, will actually come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Consumers pockets, is that correct?
TONY ABBOTT: But it's a giant money-go-round, it's a giant drag on the economy. Which we don't need. Because this funds a whole lot of middle men and traders, in a way that my scheme, the Coalition's proposal doesn't.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Is it honest of you to say that consumers and taxpayers will pay $110 billion, or whatever figure you use, is that honest?
TONY ABBOTT: Because of the, of the volume of trades, the accumulative value of all this, on the Government's own figures, is close to $120 billion.
KERRY O’BRIEN: The total churn, as you put it, does not mean that individuals will foot that bill, does it.
TONY ABBOTT: Yes, but this is the drag factor on our economy. If what you want to do is to get emissions reduction, I think we can do it through $10 billion worth of direct emissions purchases, rather than this vastly more complex system of which the Prime Minister still can't really explain, that's going to involve a money-go-round more than 10 times as large.
KERRY O’BRIEN: You call it a money-go-round; I'll come back to the question for the last time. Is it really honest of you to paint that as a $110 billion tax that would be paid for by consumers, if it is, how do you justify it?
TONY ABBOTT: These are the Government's own figures, I can do no better than run on the Government's own figures.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Their figures show they are compensating households for the painful?
TONY ABBOTT: You have to pay it before you can be compensated, and I think one of the fears that people have, and I think it's a justifiable fear, is that the costs will stay but the compensation will gradually be eroded, particularly when you have people like Ken Henry out there saying taxes will have to go up because Government spending is unsustainable.
KERRY O’BRIEN: What, in your policy, would persuade polluting electricity generators not to build new coal fired power stations?
TONY ABBOTT: Well, if their emissions intensity went up beyond its current levels, they would face a penalty. And, of course, they do have the capacity to apply to our emissions reduction fund for money to sustain carbon emission reductions.
KERRY O’BRIEN: But there is nothing in your plan that acts as a serious disincentive for them not to keep building more polluting electricity generators.
TONY ABBOTT: Well, they can't increase their emissions intensity, because if they increase their emissions intensity, they'll face penalties, and we'll work with the sector to finalise the design of the penalties, but nevertheless they'll face penalties if they increase their emissions intensity.
KERRY O’BRIEN: But they don't face penalties, if they continue to pollute at the same level.
TONY ABBOTT: Businesses as usual, look about business as usual is not going to cost them more, because we don't want to put their prices up. Look, these so called nasty big polluters are the people that keep the lights on. I mean, let's not forget how essential these people are to the business of daily life.
KERRY O’BRIEN: They do keep the lights on, but they do pollute.
TONY ABBOTT: They put out carbon.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Yes. In the Parliament today you don't think putting out carbon is any form of pollution in the context of climate change.
TONY ABBOTT: I want to reduce emission, that's why I'm proposing to spend $10 billion over the next decade to do that. But I think we have got to accept that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas as well.
KERRY O’BRIEN: By the same token, are you really saying that you are doing this because politically you are forced to, or are you doing it because you believe that the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the globe are a serious contribution to climate change.
TONY ABBOTT: Look, I want to do the right thing by the environment. And I think there's enough evidence that carbon dioxide might be a problem, to try to reduce emissions. I tell you what else we are doing here; we are buying objective environmental improvements. We are getting, we hope, a million extra solar roofs, we are getting 20 million more trees, and the sorts of things that we'll be funding, under our emissions reduction fund, are the sorts of things that are objective goods, such as higher soil carbon content, which will have more productive farmland, trying to use carbon dioxide and other waste from power stations to produce things that can then be made into biodiesel and stockfeed. We are trying to do objectively good environmental benefits with this policy.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Mr Abbott, you are using terminology like there's evidence evidence that carbon dioxide might be a problem. When you put that alongside what you told that audience in regional Victoria in October last year, "The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger". In other words, the only conclusion you draw from that is that you are saying, "We have to have a climate change policy because the people believe it's a danger, but I believe it's crap".
TONY ABBOTT: Well no, and as I said before, there was a little bit of rhetorical hyperbole in there which does not represent my considered position, I am not as evangelical about this as Prime Minister Rudd is. I am not theological about this the way Prime Minister Rudd is, but I do think it's important. And that is why I'm prepared to invest $10 billion over the coming decade to bring about things which will be good regardless, good for the environment, regardless of your views on the role of carbon dioxide in climate.
KERRY O’BRIEN: So when you say a bit of rhetorical hyperbole in that conversation with that audience you say you adjust the message to whatever audience you are playing to, if that's the case, how do we know you haven't adjusted your message for this audience?
TONY ABBOTT: Casually all of us are loose with our language, that was an occasion when I said what I shouldn't have said. It didn't represent my correct position.
KERRY O’BRIEN: There's nothing loose about the meaning of a term, nothing loose about the meaning of a term that says "absolute crap".
TONY ABBOTT: And I think what you'll find, if you go back to the comments, is that it was the so called settled science of climate change, that I thought was to be described in language that I wouldn't use on a family program.
KERRY O’BRIEN: In the Parliament today you described the Government's Emissions Trading Scheme as a giant emissions trading scam. If so, if it is a giant scam, then it's a giant scam originally introduced by the Howard Government with you in his cabinet, and until two months ago, it was supported, a giant scam supported by the then Liberal Leader and the vast bulk of the Shadow Cabinet including the man who stood beside you as an environmental spokesman endorsing this plan. Why did John Howard, Peter Costello, and Malcolm Turnbull in Government and more recently the Liberal Shadow Cabinet support an emissions trading scam?
TONY ABBOTT: I think the world has moved on, particularly since Copenhagen. The world has moved on. The only person who hasn't moved on is Kevin Rudd. And you know, with his Emissions Trading Scheme, Kevin Rudd is now in a terrible bind. He can't drop it, and yet he can't deliver it. Kevin Rudd has no Plan B. If his scheme can't pass the Senate, and it won't pass the Senate. I have the Coalition has a clear and effective climate action plan, Kevin Rudd doesn't.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Malcolm Turnbull still is not convinced, he told the partyroom that your plan is not credible, and your plan, for instance, your plan to...
TONY ABBOTT: I think he said, he was talking about the long term.
KERRY O’BRIEN: In the short-term it's credible.
TONY ABBOTT: I mean we are trying to deliver and we can deliver clearly on what was produced today, we are trying to meet our commitment and the Government's commitment of a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020, and we can do that.
KERRY O’BRIEN: You plan to sequester carbon in Australian soils, your plan. It may reduce our carbon emission, but it's not recognised by the Kyoto treaty. How will you make up cuts in emission if the global community don't recognise it, will taxpayers fund that too.
TONY ABBOTT: If it is a reduction in emissions, that's what matters. Not what Kyoto says.
KERRY O’BRIEN: You'll go on your own recipe on how to measure the targets, not a global measures.
TONY ABBOTT: Let me finish. Under the proposed Waxman Markey Bill in the United States, it is recognised, and I'm confident that if we are going to get global progress here, it will have to be recognised.
KERRY O’BRIEN: You are making a virtue of 20 million trees over the next decade, if we accept that's a saving of carbon emission, any extra tree planted is a virtue, but the Hawke Government, to put it in context, the Hawke Government initiative, back in '89 or whenever it was saw eventually 400 million trees planted. You would plant 40 times fewer, and sell that as a significant virtue, I wonder is it really that great?
TONY ABBOTT: I am not saying that's the whole of our policy, it's just an aspect of our policy, I am not saying that that is at the heart of our carbon dioxide emission reductions aspect of the policy, but it's worth doing, because more trees, more urban forests, more green corridors make for more liveable suburbs, more liveable towns, and I think it's worth doing.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Mr Abbott, we look forward to the debate that's going to follow over the course of year, thanks for joining us tonight.
TONY ABBOTT: Thank you, Kerry.
*********
The mind boggles.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 02/02/2010
Reporter: Kerry O'Brien
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott speaks with Kerry O'Brien live from Canberra.
Transcript
KERRY O’BRIEN: Coalition leader Tony Abbott joins me now from our Parliament House studio in Canberra.
Why isn't your new climate change policy a message to Australia's big polluters under an Abbott Government taxpayers will pay you to reduce your carbon pollution, you don't have to cop pain yourself.
TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: Well, under Mr Rudd's scheme taxpayers will pay because they are consumers, they'll pay a lot more, $120 billion over 10 years as opposed to $10 billion under our scheme.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Mr Abbott, you know that is not true because you have the tables that everyone is privy to that the Government released that shows that in 91 per cent of Australian households there'll be a net gain to the households by what the Government compensates them for for what they lost in increased prices.
TONY ABBOTT: I am not sure the Government has been quite as upfront and honest with publishing all its modelling as you suggest.
KERRY O’BRIEN: But equally, Mr Abbott, is it honest of you to say baldly, as you just did, that this entire cost of $100 billion plus, will actually come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Consumers pockets, is that correct?
TONY ABBOTT: But it's a giant money-go-round, it's a giant drag on the economy. Which we don't need. Because this funds a whole lot of middle men and traders, in a way that my scheme, the Coalition's proposal doesn't.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Is it honest of you to say that consumers and taxpayers will pay $110 billion, or whatever figure you use, is that honest?
TONY ABBOTT: Because of the, of the volume of trades, the accumulative value of all this, on the Government's own figures, is close to $120 billion.
KERRY O’BRIEN: The total churn, as you put it, does not mean that individuals will foot that bill, does it.
TONY ABBOTT: Yes, but this is the drag factor on our economy. If what you want to do is to get emissions reduction, I think we can do it through $10 billion worth of direct emissions purchases, rather than this vastly more complex system of which the Prime Minister still can't really explain, that's going to involve a money-go-round more than 10 times as large.
KERRY O’BRIEN: You call it a money-go-round; I'll come back to the question for the last time. Is it really honest of you to paint that as a $110 billion tax that would be paid for by consumers, if it is, how do you justify it?
TONY ABBOTT: These are the Government's own figures, I can do no better than run on the Government's own figures.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Their figures show they are compensating households for the painful?
TONY ABBOTT: You have to pay it before you can be compensated, and I think one of the fears that people have, and I think it's a justifiable fear, is that the costs will stay but the compensation will gradually be eroded, particularly when you have people like Ken Henry out there saying taxes will have to go up because Government spending is unsustainable.
KERRY O’BRIEN: What, in your policy, would persuade polluting electricity generators not to build new coal fired power stations?
TONY ABBOTT: Well, if their emissions intensity went up beyond its current levels, they would face a penalty. And, of course, they do have the capacity to apply to our emissions reduction fund for money to sustain carbon emission reductions.
KERRY O’BRIEN: But there is nothing in your plan that acts as a serious disincentive for them not to keep building more polluting electricity generators.
TONY ABBOTT: Well, they can't increase their emissions intensity, because if they increase their emissions intensity, they'll face penalties, and we'll work with the sector to finalise the design of the penalties, but nevertheless they'll face penalties if they increase their emissions intensity.
KERRY O’BRIEN: But they don't face penalties, if they continue to pollute at the same level.
TONY ABBOTT: Businesses as usual, look about business as usual is not going to cost them more, because we don't want to put their prices up. Look, these so called nasty big polluters are the people that keep the lights on. I mean, let's not forget how essential these people are to the business of daily life.
KERRY O’BRIEN: They do keep the lights on, but they do pollute.
TONY ABBOTT: They put out carbon.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Yes. In the Parliament today you don't think putting out carbon is any form of pollution in the context of climate change.
TONY ABBOTT: I want to reduce emission, that's why I'm proposing to spend $10 billion over the next decade to do that. But I think we have got to accept that carbon dioxide is an essential trace gas as well.
KERRY O’BRIEN: By the same token, are you really saying that you are doing this because politically you are forced to, or are you doing it because you believe that the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the globe are a serious contribution to climate change.
TONY ABBOTT: Look, I want to do the right thing by the environment. And I think there's enough evidence that carbon dioxide might be a problem, to try to reduce emissions. I tell you what else we are doing here; we are buying objective environmental improvements. We are getting, we hope, a million extra solar roofs, we are getting 20 million more trees, and the sorts of things that we'll be funding, under our emissions reduction fund, are the sorts of things that are objective goods, such as higher soil carbon content, which will have more productive farmland, trying to use carbon dioxide and other waste from power stations to produce things that can then be made into biodiesel and stockfeed. We are trying to do objectively good environmental benefits with this policy.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Mr Abbott, you are using terminology like there's evidence evidence that carbon dioxide might be a problem. When you put that alongside what you told that audience in regional Victoria in October last year, "The climate change argument is absolute crap, however the politics are tough for us because 80 per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger". In other words, the only conclusion you draw from that is that you are saying, "We have to have a climate change policy because the people believe it's a danger, but I believe it's crap".
TONY ABBOTT: Well no, and as I said before, there was a little bit of rhetorical hyperbole in there which does not represent my considered position, I am not as evangelical about this as Prime Minister Rudd is. I am not theological about this the way Prime Minister Rudd is, but I do think it's important. And that is why I'm prepared to invest $10 billion over the coming decade to bring about things which will be good regardless, good for the environment, regardless of your views on the role of carbon dioxide in climate.
KERRY O’BRIEN: So when you say a bit of rhetorical hyperbole in that conversation with that audience you say you adjust the message to whatever audience you are playing to, if that's the case, how do we know you haven't adjusted your message for this audience?
TONY ABBOTT: Casually all of us are loose with our language, that was an occasion when I said what I shouldn't have said. It didn't represent my correct position.
KERRY O’BRIEN: There's nothing loose about the meaning of a term, nothing loose about the meaning of a term that says "absolute crap".
TONY ABBOTT: And I think what you'll find, if you go back to the comments, is that it was the so called settled science of climate change, that I thought was to be described in language that I wouldn't use on a family program.
KERRY O’BRIEN: In the Parliament today you described the Government's Emissions Trading Scheme as a giant emissions trading scam. If so, if it is a giant scam, then it's a giant scam originally introduced by the Howard Government with you in his cabinet, and until two months ago, it was supported, a giant scam supported by the then Liberal Leader and the vast bulk of the Shadow Cabinet including the man who stood beside you as an environmental spokesman endorsing this plan. Why did John Howard, Peter Costello, and Malcolm Turnbull in Government and more recently the Liberal Shadow Cabinet support an emissions trading scam?
TONY ABBOTT: I think the world has moved on, particularly since Copenhagen. The world has moved on. The only person who hasn't moved on is Kevin Rudd. And you know, with his Emissions Trading Scheme, Kevin Rudd is now in a terrible bind. He can't drop it, and yet he can't deliver it. Kevin Rudd has no Plan B. If his scheme can't pass the Senate, and it won't pass the Senate. I have the Coalition has a clear and effective climate action plan, Kevin Rudd doesn't.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Malcolm Turnbull still is not convinced, he told the partyroom that your plan is not credible, and your plan, for instance, your plan to...
TONY ABBOTT: I think he said, he was talking about the long term.
KERRY O’BRIEN: In the short-term it's credible.
TONY ABBOTT: I mean we are trying to deliver and we can deliver clearly on what was produced today, we are trying to meet our commitment and the Government's commitment of a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020, and we can do that.
KERRY O’BRIEN: You plan to sequester carbon in Australian soils, your plan. It may reduce our carbon emission, but it's not recognised by the Kyoto treaty. How will you make up cuts in emission if the global community don't recognise it, will taxpayers fund that too.
TONY ABBOTT: If it is a reduction in emissions, that's what matters. Not what Kyoto says.
KERRY O’BRIEN: You'll go on your own recipe on how to measure the targets, not a global measures.
TONY ABBOTT: Let me finish. Under the proposed Waxman Markey Bill in the United States, it is recognised, and I'm confident that if we are going to get global progress here, it will have to be recognised.
KERRY O’BRIEN: You are making a virtue of 20 million trees over the next decade, if we accept that's a saving of carbon emission, any extra tree planted is a virtue, but the Hawke Government, to put it in context, the Hawke Government initiative, back in '89 or whenever it was saw eventually 400 million trees planted. You would plant 40 times fewer, and sell that as a significant virtue, I wonder is it really that great?
TONY ABBOTT: I am not saying that's the whole of our policy, it's just an aspect of our policy, I am not saying that that is at the heart of our carbon dioxide emission reductions aspect of the policy, but it's worth doing, because more trees, more urban forests, more green corridors make for more liveable suburbs, more liveable towns, and I think it's worth doing.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Mr Abbott, we look forward to the debate that's going to follow over the course of year, thanks for joining us tonight.
TONY ABBOTT: Thank you, Kerry.
*********
The mind boggles.
in fairness to Abbott those quotes probably werent scripted therefore he mightnt have actually been telling the truth.
KnightersRevenge said:
What sort of consequences Knighter?
Increased soil carbon is exactly what Australia needs IMO. It would wonders for the ecosystem.
I just don't know how it would done in a way that could offset pollution, nor how it could be measured in ongoing to ensure it wasn't released.
Azza said:
Its a coal industry snow job. I wouldn't mind so much if they were paying for the research themselves, but millions of taxpayer $ have gone into what is a very long shot.The smart thing would be to funnel money from fossil fuels into development of clean energy. Oh hang on thats a carbon price.
tigersnake said:
This reminds me of Detroit's backing of hydrogen as a fuel source while opposing electric. Pick a project with lots of opportunitiy for photo ops with pointy heads in white coats and sciencey looking equipment with a very very long lead time and people will get off your back about the dirty tech you're pushing out the door.
My worry is that the reason for looking at sequestration is not scientific it is political and a project based on bad science could swallow money now because Abbott would fast track it which I think increases the potential of unintended consequences.
Hi guys,
At least on a theoretical basis sequestration could work (after all its the equivalent of storing carbon back into the ground in place of it being stored as coal or by planting trees (where the carbon is sequestered as cellulose)).
The principle therefore could work. The difficulty I have with sequestration is that as far as I am aware there are difficulties in achieving the desired level of sequestration. Depending on how it is intended to be stored I could also be concerned about unintended consequences (ie an unplanned release).
Peaka
At least on a theoretical basis sequestration could work (after all its the equivalent of storing carbon back into the ground in place of it being stored as coal or by planting trees (where the carbon is sequestered as cellulose)).
The principle therefore could work. The difficulty I have with sequestration is that as far as I am aware there are difficulties in achieving the desired level of sequestration. Depending on how it is intended to be stored I could also be concerned about unintended consequences (ie an unplanned release).
Peaka
