Just for a change, I find I agree with the Federal Liberals. Well, those who oppose the Government’s proposed CPRS, anyway.

Malcolm Turnbull “has warned that it's crucial the opposition play a constructive role in the climate change debate or risk electoral annihilation.” He couldn’t do better than reject it altogether. It is past amendment. It is a poorly thought-out, totally flawed, utter failure of a proposal, because it will do nothing to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions.

Thousands, maybe millions, of words have been written explaining why an ETS is not the answer. The most effective answer comes from NASA’s James Hansen, who has proposed a carbon tax and dividend plan that would be fairer, simpler, and more acceptable to all the people of the world. And most importantly, it would work.

Here is a challenge – is there even one member of Federal Parliament with enough interest in saving the planet to read up on his proposal? (It can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf)

With the ETS, there is no baby in the bath-water. Throw it all out, and start again.

I object to the ETS because it's precisely the type of climate change management scheme that the Liberals would implement: a system which makes the Australian public liable for the pollution costs of industry.

Rudd/Swan is a definite improvement over Howard/Costello, but I'd prefer a non-hack party not beholden to the business unions over all of them.

Sancho

I agree with you completely, the Rudd ETS is exactly the what the Libs would be proposing if they were still in power. All it does is shift money around without actually investing in alternative clean sustainable technology.

A sad day for me today, I think the big boys are still winning and any who speak out are being silenced or misdirected.

Baygon,
Sadly your take on political reality is somewhat flawed.
Throw the ETS out and you'll get a double dissolution election in which if the current polls are indicative the Libs will lose big time
(pick your grounds). The senate will still be hung more non majors (Fielding type ratbags).
A joint sitting and guess what? the ETS will pass the way the Labor want it, no input from Libs etc. How is that in the interest of the public?
Ask yourself who REALLY wins Big Business. More time to white ant ANY solution.

If the conservatives do win it'll be by a gnat's toe nail. Big business will stall undermine and pressure Conservatives into either nothing, the preferred option of some remote Libs and the Country Party. Sorry I mean national Party ( naughty corner for me 100 lines 'I must not call the country party the Country Party'). And Oh yes big polluters or a better deal. What's wrong with this picture?

Pragmatics suggest we do as suggested pressure the govt to up the ante
percentage or the time frame in accordance with the royal commission.

We have Hob's choice improve the ETS or nothing. I think the ETS sucks but "it's the only roulette wheel in town". Malcolm is right either play or deal with the consequences of nothing.

Opposition for opposition sake is a waste of bloody time and effort regardless of which party it is. The objective should be the betterment of the people bugger the party power games.

No examinator I feel they can & must do better than go along with this rubbish. It's wrong, & must be resisted.

They have to vote against it, & make it totally clear that they will throw the lot out, once they get back in. Just as labor have with the dreadful IR laws.

They may loose a double dissolution election, big time, but they will have the planet on side. The global warming scare is about to disappear in a remarkably short time now. Both the lack of warming, & the exposure of the number of times data has been fabricated are going to make sure of that.

If they have helped put a CPRS in place, we'll be stuck with it, as it would be too expensive, in compensation, to get rid of.

If they have warned they will chuck it out, they can do just that. The only ones caught will be the sharpies. The rest of us, even the twits who want the thing, can come out with minimum damage. Oz may even gain some advantage from the whole fiasco, particularly if the UN dies from its part in the scam.

Malcolm will not survive either way, which is a good thing. He has proved himself to be quite incompetent, & a poor tactician as well. Definately not someone we would want as a PM, thanks.

malcom has set himself up in a dumb position...he personally wants the carbon tax[for his former buddies..but he leads a party that wisely dosnt want this extra big business tax on the allready over burdend tax payer

apparently its not enough..that we are getting this extra tax on everything we buy..[or sell?]...apparently many are expected to take a wage cut as well..[for their employers tax]...heard that on the media last night

malcom needs to make each by-election..a full on hard press..to stop the lies/deceptions..[simply by revealing to the electors..the true facts..are scary as...and malcom is good at that form of politicing..but no one is bothering to discuss the facts

...[obviously..as big business wants it..the media supports their mates]...so will he...and in serving his mates not his party enter the new opposition leader...like as not it will be joe...

malcon...turnbull..[kevins bull/spin]..into votes
go the party line in this...stand for reason...not the many accountants seeking perpetual complusory tax...on an ever reducing cap...thus ever increasing carbon commodity tax rate/price...

its restricted supply...and the carbon credit..can only increase in price...we need to bid on globally..the whole concept was dreamed up by thatcher inc...only then the thinking was global cooling...then enron..and then the bankers think tanks...the concept has been on the books..in various forms for years

now its climate change...cause the spin..now is..warming...but it will change forever...[according to how close to the sun we are]

Examinator I am an optimist. I am aware that a double dissolution opens the possibility that the legislation will be passed at a joint sitting. If that happens we are no worse off then we would be if we passed it now. However, opposing it at this stage opens the door to the possibility that the chorus of environmental economists will get enough volume to be heard. Any ETS is essentially yet another ponzi scheme - generates huge wealth for some without doing anything about emissions. The result is a rather odd alliance between the climate sceptics who see this as a waste of time and those who want to see real action on reducing our emissions. I included the link to Hansen's testimony because it is perhaps the most succinct summary of a genuine alternative. However, he is no orphan - Richard Dennis from the Australia Institute has been perhaps one of the major Australian voices in opposition to the CPRS; all we can do is let as many people know that the CPRS scheme is a hoax - it doesnt do what it sets out to achieve. the really sad thing is that there is no one in federal Parliament who is prepared to expose this hoax.

in one question/time

asking the hard anti global warming/change questions
he can gain 15 points...

dont waste a second on voting a new leader
spend that time forming the killer questions

if you cant think of em
i will give them to you for 50 lbs
predecimal.coin...it had silver in it...wasnt nickle like post decimalisation...[that was about stealing all our silver coin]

but coin is the only constituted legal/lawfull/constitutional..currency
notes are only fiat...but he should know all that

but his loyalties lay with the bankers...
who stole our nations silver coin
stole control over the fed/mint/stole the treasury

his loyalty sadly lies with the bankers
[who paid for every war ever fought...

his loyalty..lies with the decievers..[ursurors]..money changers....
..not the party...not the people..
not even the constitution..nor his conscience...

nor the children of god...and who living..
...was not gifted to live..from god