Greg Hunt is more likely to fall "because" of his support for Direct Action or any action at all. I encourage him to submit his beliefs to detailed cross-examination in public.

China, India, the Americas and all of Europe (not just trendy Western Europe) are heavily polluting at growing levels. These countries are as ignorant about Australia's moral environmental example as we are about Canada's example.

Abbott recognises the futility of disabling the Australian economy in the name of climate change measures that make no difference. The world is industrial and permanently geared to economic growth not one of "moral" environmental issues.

Learning to handle the inevitable environmental damage caused by economic growth is the real challenge.

Efforts to freeze growth or reverse it would involve unelected force. Voters want growth.

Do stop fretting Randal, we have got rid of a few dills, & good Riddance. They were all too dumb to see through the fraud that was the Global Warming movement, & we are much better off without them.

With just a bit of luck the whole confidence trick, including the IPCC will have totally collapsed before we can waste too much money on Direct Action, or any other sort of action. If this collapse takes with it a whole phalanx of bureaucrats too dumb to see a con job, so much the better.

Now we have to stop the damn fool alternate energy program, before it saddles us with huge expenditure for no return.

Why won't these dills look at what has & is happening in places like Spain & Germany on this rubbish, & stop wasting the money we don't have.

Any bureaucrat, or academic who wants a future would do very well to get off that gravy train they are currently riding, even if that means walking for a while. That train is losing wheels so rapidly, it may crash at any moment, taking a lot of fools with it, & it can't do it soon enough for the good of all of us.

'Any bureaucrat, or academic who wants a future would do very well to get off that gravy train they are currently riding, even if that means walking for a while. That train is losing wheels so rapidly, it may crash at any moment, taking a lot of fools with it, & it can't do it soon enough for the good of all of us. '

I wish you were right Hasbeen but stinken pride won't allow the deceivers to continue to brainwash the youth and pedal the failed religion. Just look at how patheticly the 'true ' believers ignore every contradiction to their own faith here on OLO.

"However, Parkinson and Comley opened up some strategic gaps of their own, especially in the early days of the Department of Climate Change when they authored the 570 page Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a densely packed, high-brow, economic analysis, very public with an uncompromising market focus."

The economic analysis may have been densely packed, high-brow, very public and market focused, but it was contrary to the national interest as it was based on the erroneous assumption that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. Adoption of the CPRS will result in billions and billions of dollars of damage to the Australian economy, but have no measurable impact whatsoever on climate change. It is a legacy of the worst government since Federation.

" If the past is a guide, Direct Action could eventually devour its strongest supporter, new Environment Minister, Greg Hunt." If only that were true, and the sooner the better. Sadly, Greg Hunt is a committed AGW believer. Adoption of Direct Action will waste billions of dollars, but again have no measurable impact on climate change.

There is no empirical scientific evidence nor economics case to justify expenditure on CO2 emissions reduction. Instead, the Government should be planning on how to best adapt to future natural disasters.

I am simply unable to understand why there is so much angst about what is the problem.

The fact is that Australians simply do not want to pay any more tax. They would really prefer not to pay any tax at all. The only time you can get them to cheerfully pay tax is when we are being invaded and the tax is for defence.

The only ones in the community who want others to pay tax are those who pay little themselves, or who are directly on the government tit, and have a vested increase in more tax being paid.

In particular, taxpayers do not want to pay for welfare.

It is even worse in America.

The real motto of the Independence War was not:

"No taxation without representation"

it was:

"No taxation with or without representation"

or, in other words:

"No taxation"

The Americans were no more interested in paying tax to Congress than they had been in paying it to the British.

The whole climate change con is about convincing people to pay more tax.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

All taxation is theft, and the only difference is that the tax office uses the law, whereas a burglar uses a gun.

As a result, the only defence against tax theft is the law, and it is wonderful to see people using loopholes in the law to legally avoid tax.

The ancient Hebrews had it right. The correct level of taxation is 10%. Anything more is theft.

Plantaganet: "Abbott recognises the futility of disabling the Australian economy in the name of climate change measures that make no difference."

The Australian economy was not disabled. Unilateral action on climate change intended to dovetail into a global cap and trade system would have made a difference had an ETS developed as anticipated. Exporters are still holding carbon credits in this anticipation: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/10/10/policy-politics/carbon-pricings-poison-pill?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=453241&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt= Had an ETS market not sufficiently developed we would have made adjustments that maintained domestic carbon pricing and kept us export competitive until it did.

I have argued, on another thread, that we can continue decarbonizing unilaterally and go nuclear(thorium LFTR) without giving up our natural advantage (buried fossil-fuels) if the world does not follow. Coupled with Labor's domestic carbon pricing/compensatory measures encouraging a weaning towards renewables, a sustainable future emerges.

Abbott easily exploited the electorate's uncertainty and misunderstanding about the path Labor was taking, but it was on the right path and that will be seen so in time. Biting the nuclear bullet may have been a problem for Labor, but if "Direct Action" money is put towards nuclear power generation, the future will judge Abbott well.

"The world is industrial and permanently geared to economic growth not one of "moral" environmental issues.Learning to handle the inevitable environmental damage caused by economic growth is the real challenge."

We can have sustainable growth by cleaning up after ourselves, which adds to GDP. This requires generating plentiful clean power, which can also be applied to food production.

Of course, underlying all this is an imperative to mitigate AGW that Abbott does not appear to appreciate.

Labor's carbon tax government resoundingly turfed out by Australian voters. Far fewer votes for the Greens.

Australian voters being forced - through the carbon tax - to cross-subsidize big business carbon spewers - makes no sense.

No plastic bubble over Australia to shield us from the international climate as India and China rapidly burn more coal.

World increase in coal and other hydrocarbon use cancels out any impact of Australian green policies...

Tony Abbott can truly say he got the Prime Ministership over the political death of two Prime Ministers, one Opposition Leader and now two senior public servants.
Randal Stewart,
Are you trying to tell us there wasn't an election in September ? I thought Abbott got voted in by the people.

The open house for green ideology is on display 24/7 in our southern most state.
Pristine, undeveloped, ripe for tourism; bankrupt.
Seems the logical place to house the global warming refugees.

Plantaganet: "Australian voters being forced - through the carbon tax - to cross-subsidize big business carbon spewers - makes no sense."

They were not cross subsidized. Emmitters serving the domestic market passed their carbon price costs on to domestic consumers. The consumers received compensation (tax cuts pension rises) for the cost of carbon passing through the economy, including in their power bills. Exporting emitters received annual carbon credits that were to cease upon the segue into an ETS. This kept them globally competitive. There was no subsidy, per se, as the credits cost the taxpayer nothing.

The purpose was for consumers to avoid carbon costs by opting for efficiency and renewable energy sources such as solar panels, thereby gradually decarbonizing the economy.

Abbott/LNP/Murdoch had a field day. "Direct Action" is not market-based and takes tax money and gives it to chosen projects. If that was nuclear (thorium LFTR), it would be good, but it probably won't.

Luciferase

You again mate :) Wrong again.

Regards

Pete