With friends like these...
The great big tax on everything* based on absolute crap science* that has put the Greens in charge of government policy* and which will result in economic armageddon* has been given the thumbs up by the most powerful conservative leader in the world. Will David still get his Christmas card from Tony this year?
*These are all direct quotes from the opposition leader.
However, the endorsement also highlights the weakness of the plan. The UK is aiming at a 50% reduction from 1990 levels by 2025 (and has already managed a 28% reduction between 1990 and 2009, though with this important proviso). Gillard (and Abbott, officially) are aiming at 5% below 2000 levels by 2020. As I have said before, I think there are serious problems with the proposed Clean Energy Scheme. Criticising the opposition ought not be confused with uncritical endorsement of the government.
It is of course quite possible to pay too much attention to governments, and to find in their failures a salve for our own consciences or in their dramas a welcome distraction from our own inaction. But the reverse is also possible.
Posts
6 comments:
You won't often find me coming to Abbott's defence, but he did somewhat retreat from his statement that the science was absolute crap: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/abbott-wont-take-back-climate-comments/story-fn3dxity-1226028937657.
Everyone should have the opportunity to change their views should they become convinced that they were previously wrong.
That's hardly a repudiation. He was asked four times and did not reject the earlier comment, just made the following distinction: "I was talking about the settled science, I wasn't talking about climate change as such". So climate change is not absolute crap, the settled science is absolute crap. The fact that he was asked a third and a fourth time showed that the journalists were not satisfied that he had actually rejected his earlier comment, and so I don't think the headline is misleading in this case ("Abbott won't take back climate comments").
There is still no evidence that he has read anything other than Australian columnists and the misinformation of Ian Plimer's book (which Abbott has admitted is his primary source). He continues to make basic errors (recently calling carbon dioxide a "weightless" gas) and to demonstrate no familiarity with the scale of the threat. He is very happy to share a platform with hardcore deniers, and promotes misleading or incorrect factoids sourced from prominent deniers. He has gone out of his way to have a meeting with the loopiest denier, Lord Monckton, while refusing to talk to actual climate scientists who were in the room with him and willing to give him a briefing.
I am happy to give Mr Abbott as much credit as he deserves on this topic. I just don't think it is very much.
The Conversation: The courage to lead.
Skeptical Science: The opposition's carbon abatement scheme examined. (Oh, and part one of this post is here, but it is the part two that has the conclusions).
TAI: The direct costs of waiting for direct action on climate change.
Peter Hartcher: Worlds apart on politics. The two political worlds in Australia.
Post a Comment