BIN CITY
Tim Blair – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (11:21 am)
We keep hearing from the likes of Al Gore and Wayne Swan about China’s advanced environmental policies. Let’s see how things are going advancement-wise in Guangzhou:
Authorities in this southern city will introduce a garbage sorting system on April 1 as part of an effort to deal with the ever-increasing amount of garbage generated by urban areas.
Garbage-sorting is being introduced in 2011? Doesn’t seem so advanced, if by “advanced” you mean a dedicated garbage bin for virtually every single disposable item, which is the way the west is trending.
The regulation, which the Standing Committee of the Guangzhou People’s Congress passed after soliciting public opinion, will make garbage sorting a requirement in the treatment of waste from urban areas, according to Li Tinggui, director of the Guangzhou administrative committee of urban management.
Between them, the Standing Committee of the Guangzhou People’s Congress and the Guangzhou administrative committee of urban management have finally gotten around to the idea of multiple bins. By this measure, urban Sydney councils are commier than actual commies. Li Tinggui explains the current, pre-sorting Guangzhou garbage method:
Nearly 14,000 tons of waste are now produced each day in Guangzhou, which has a population of more than 10 million. Of that, about 11,000 tons is buried in four landfills, while the rest is burned in two large incinerators, he said.
So that’s three thousand tons of waste incinerated every day, an amount only now being addressed by some kind of domestic bin-sorting deal. According to Swan, “the Chinese are taking dramatic action to reduce their emissions.” Really, Mr Treasurer? That’s not what China Daily says:
Guangzhou’s garbage-sorting policy is believed to be the first of its kind among China’s big cities.
TAX US NOW
Tim Blair – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (11:17 am)
A spontaneous and inspiring letter to Melbourne’s Age:
Relatively little media attention has been given to the spontaneous and inspiring community protest by more than 8000 citizens of Melbourne held on Saturday outside the Prime Minister’s office in Treasury Place. This was in support of her imposition of a carbon tax and called for urgent action on climate change, including renewal energy initiatives.
Via Dan Lewis, who emails: “I didn’t realise you could protest in support of something.” It’s interesting, too, that a spontaneous protest featured so much evident planning. The letter continues:
What was so inspiring was the extraordinary number of young people who attended the climate action rally and their compelling warnings that time is running out and that their futures are in jeopardy if solutions to arresting climate change are not found soon.
Not to mention all the stranded pandas. Meanwhile, genuine grass-roots protests tend to look a little more grass-rootsy.
ASSANGE BC
Tim Blair – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (05:56 am)
How very cute:
Last night the ABC pre-arranged for Julian Assange, accused of crimes in Sweden and sought for political havoc in the US, to accuse the Australian Prime Minister of “treason”.
While Gillard kept a good-humoured face on what was happening, the ABC organised for Assange, who has been helped by the government in his court cases, to appear on a video to make his accusation. [Q & A] then backed up the WikiLeaks “anarchist” with questions from outside and the studio audience.
Gillard did remarkably well under the circumstances. From this point, however, no future guest should trust Q & A.
476 DAYS UNTIL LABOR’S STRANDED PANDA TAX
Tim Blair – Monday, March 14, 11 (11:35 pm)
Here come the ads:
Australians face bombardment with glossy brochures, emotive TV ads and subliminal “below the line” marketing under a ready-made strategy to sell the government’s proposed carbon tax …
The plan reveals a $6.5 million mailout of 6-8 page information booklets was under consideration by the former Rudd government to win public support for its climate response.
It also recommended a $7-$20 million media buy to explain to households the need for climate action, which would cost them $4-$5 a week more in electricity bills and $2 more a week for gas.
Intriguingly, the plan – drawn up in 2009 – cites research showing “60 per cent of the target audience were either sceptical, apathetic or doubtful about climate change.” One cause of scepticism: emotive climate change claims. “As you can see here,” says the adorable little climate moppet, possibly auditioning for a government advertising role, “I don’t want more pandas to be stranded on ice cubes.”
UPDATE. Another day, another dire poll for Gillardian carbonators:
Voter hostility to tackling climate change with a carbon price has jumped sharply since the federal government announced the plan, with a poll showing most people oppose putting a price on carbon emissions.
The Herald/Nielsen telephone poll, which surveyed 1400 voters last week, found 56 per cent opposed introduction of a carbon price while just 35 per cent supported such a measure.
That is a 12-point increase in the share of voters opposing a carbon price since Nielsen polled on the issue in early February.
And then Gillard stopped lying.
Gillard’s latest global warming deceit
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (11:16 am)
Julia Gillard deliberately deceived voters on global warming on Q&A last night, by suggesting China was replacing its coal-fired power stations with wind farms:
The rest of the world is moving… China, closing down a dirty coal-fired power generation facility at the rate of one every one to two weeks, putting up a wind turbine at the rate of one every hour...
And this, she said, was why Australia had to cut its own emissions, too.
But this woman seems incapable of honest discussion. In fact, China is fast expanding its number of coal-fired stations, as the 20 October 2010 edition of its official English language newspaper, the China Daily, explained:
That is why anything Australia does to cut its emissions will be completely swamped by what China is actually doing, as opposed to what Gillard pretends it’s doing:
Because of (China’s) heavy reliance on old coal-fired plant, electricity generation accounts for much of the country’s air pollution, which is a strong reason to increase nuclear share. China recently overtook the USA as the world’s largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The US Energy Information Administration predicts that China’s share in global coal-related emissions will grow by 2.7% per year, from 4.9 billion tonnes in 2006 to 9.3 billion tonnes in 2030, some 52% of the projected world total. Total carbon dioxide emissions in China are projected to grow by 2.8% per year from 6.2 billion tonnes in 2006 to 11.7 billion tonnes in 2030 (or 28% of world total).
Do not trust a single word Gillard says about global warming.
(Thanks to reader Ray.)
Gillard success: consensus achieved on “carbon tax”
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (10:02 am)
Julia Gillard last July, on government plans to cut emissions:
Consensus achieved:
A Nielsen telephone poll, published in Fairfax newspapers on Tuesday, surveyed 1400 voters last week and shows found 56 per cent were opposed to the introduction of a carbon price...
The real fallout is the propaganda
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (09:38 am)
The great green scaremongering gets worse. Here’s a doctored map being circulated on the Internet to whip up fear in the US:
It comes with warnings ot possible deaths:
I hope people realize this is amazingly serious if a meltdown happens. The Fallout will travel according to the trade winds…80-120 rads - You have a 10% chance of vomiting and experiencing nausia for a few days
130 -170 rads - You have a 25% chance of vomiting and contracting other symptoms
180-220 rads - You have a 50% chance of vomiting and having other severe physical effects
270 More..-330 rads - 20% chance of death in 6 weeks, or you will recover in a few months.
400-500 rads - 50% chance of death
550-750 rads - Nausea within a few hours ; no survivors
1000 rads - immediate incapacitation and death within a week or less.
Australian Radiation Services says it’s a lie:
DISCLAIMER: Australian Radiation Services is aware of information about radioactive contamination being spread from the Japanese nuclear reactor incident released under the ARS logo and name. We wish to be clear that this information has not originated from ARS and as such distance ourselves from any such misinformation.
US nuclear experts don’t believe it.
(Thanks to reader Wally.)
Making mock of industry that guards a Green as he sleeps
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (07:03 am)
Astonishing, but such a marker of the times, is seeing the Left deplore what actually keeps them safer:
(Drum editor) Jonathan Green on ABC online’s The Drum:
Was this the way it might end for all of us one day. A gleaming industrialised, organised, clever, rich, resourceful chunk of the first world, humanity’s finest swept away by the simple inextinguishable power of nature. The lesson seemed so clear: that natural force would have its day and never mind our feeble squabbles or yelps of protest.A reader comment at the end of Green’s piece:
Not so. The great Kanto earthquake killed about 140 000 people in 1923. This earthquake was more than five times more powerful. If this earthquake had occurred in 1923, the loss of life would have been far, far greater - many hundreds of thousands.
Today the Left mocks the industrialisation which cossets them. A century ago the object was different but the superciliousness identical:
Sending Kevin to help himself
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (06:54 am)
A NEW section has been established in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade dedicated solely to predicting where in the world the next crisis will occur, and to make sure that Kevin Rudd is dispatched there as the news is breaking, if not before. Rudd has told his department that whenever parliament is not sitting, he intends to be on the road, out of Australia; unless, of course, there is a flood in Queensland and he has to help neighbours rescue their suitcases, or the tsunami in Japan demands the oversight of operations from Canberra in the Prime Minister’s absence, or even in her presence.
As Niki suggest, this deliberate campaign to replace Gillard must end in tears.
The verballing of Tony Abbott
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (06:29 am)
Global warming is a debate polluted by deceitful semantics and misrepresentations that cloud the real issues.
Here’s what Opposition Leader Tony Abbott actually said:
I don’t think we can say that the science is settled here. There is no doubt that we should do our best to rest lightly on the planet and there is no doubt that we should do our best to emit as few waste products as possible, but, having said that, whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven… We should take precautions against risks and threats, potential ones as well as actual ones, but I don’t think we should assume that the highest environmental challenge, let alone the great moral social and political challenge of our time, is to reduce our emissions
Summing up: Abbott did not rule out that the climate is changing - which it is, and always will. He did not rule out man’s gases contributing to any change - which they probably are, however insignificantly. He did not say we should not Do Something about those gases - even though it would essentially make no difference. Indeed, there is nothing in what he said that even many confirmed believers in man-made global warming, such as Professor Bjorn Lomborg, would dispute.
But now let’s see how the Sydney Morning Herald’s Lenore Taylor, a passionate warmist, summarised Abbott’s comments:
THE Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has again questioned the scientific evidence for climate change, saying he does not accept that carbon dioxide is a proven ‘’environmental villain’’ or that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the most important environmental challenge.
No, Abbott did not question the scientific evidence for climate change. If anything, he questioned the theory that man’s emissions are primarily responsible for that undoubted change, and that that change will therefore accelerate disastrously. That is altogether a different thing.
But Climate Change Minister Greg Combet’s characterisation of Abbott’s comments were far more cartoonish, and disgracefully deceitful - or merely shamefully ignorant:
Combet seized on the comments by Mr Abbott yesterday as ‘’proof’’ the Liberal Party’s climate policy is based on ‘’the extreme view that climate change doesn’t exist’’.
False. No one disputes that climate change has occurred in the past, occurs now, and will occur in the future.
Mr Combet said the comments showed ‘’Mr Abbott is a climate change denier, which explains why his climate policy is nonsense’’.
Again, Abbott does not and did not deny climate change, and the use of the word “denier” - deliberately chosen to make an analogy with Holocaust deniers - is despicable and dishonest.
If we stuck to disagreeing with only those things we genuinely disagree on, we’d have arguments enough. Of course, some of those arguments might then seem not half as convincing. Which is where the weasel words come in.
Watching Gillard sink
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (06:24 am)
How gone is Julia Gillard? Last night she got a pasting from Tony Jones and his Left-leaning Q&A audience - mainly for being not Left enough, true, but more tellingly for being laughable, even to them. The vast majority of questions were hostile, bar a few about “shock jocks” calling her “Ju-liar”. The tone was derisory.
As a cultural marker, it was as significant as the Q&A session in which Kevin Rudd was badgered by school students and lectured them in anger - finally revealing even to a Q&A audience that we wasn’t half as popular as thought, and twice as nasty personally as assumed.
It started badly enough. She was mocked for being too tearily nice to the Americans in her address to Congress and not remembering the Vietnam war. And then there was the usual whinge about WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange, a Leftist icon despite being accused of sexual assault, who popped up in an ambush on video demanding to know what information she’d exchanged with other governments about him and whether she should be charged with treason.
Then came the bit that got the headlines. She was asked about her “lie” on the carbon dioxide tax, and did not even quibble over the word. In fact, she conceded she broke her word:
I did say during the last election campaign, I promised that there would be no carbon tax. That’s true and I’ve walked away from that commitment and I’m not going to try and pretend anything else,” she said.
In defending that, she revealed her weakness and confirmed her poor judgement:
Ms Gillard said if she was leading a majority government she would have an emissions trading scheme with no carbon tax, but the hung Parliament forced her to “work with others”.
That “others” means the Greens. But what she should have realised is that the hung Parliament also “forced” the Greens to work with Labor. After all, the Greens hold just one of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives.
And then attack after attack:
Asked by a viewer if she had two personalities and who was the Real Julia, Ms Gillard hit back: “There’s only one Julia ... that’s the one Julia whose always believed in an emissions trading scheme.”
Ms Gillard also said she had no regrets about challenging Kevin Rudd for the Labor leadership last June and replacing him as PM.
“I’m convinced that was absolutely the right decision,” she said.
And more…
She claimed that the person who described Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd as “out of control”, described by Fairfax reports as an “adviser”, was probably not.
Now safely back home, she now advocated the no-fly zone over Libya that she in Washington refused to specifically back, which caused the reports of her rift with Rudd.
She kept using the lying word “carbon” - as in “pricing carbon” - when she’s actually taxing carbon dioxide.
Gillard’s best defence was to giggle repeatedly. I don’t know if it worked.
UPDATE
Dennis Shanahan is right. The ambushing of Gillard was offensive:
THE ABC has gone too far - for a publicly funded, so-called even-handed public broadcaster, last night’s Q&A ambush of Julia Gillard was a travesty of politics and news reporting.... The ambush of Gillard, with no warning from the program, which claims to provide unscripted questions from “you” the audience, was worse television terrorism than the Seven Network’s “shit happens” ambush of Tony Abbott by Mark Riley.
Q&A is less about the audience asking the questions than the far-Left Jones asking them, and seeking out those who’d ask some more that he’d like. And then screening a frankly rude and childish video mocking Gillard at the end, which she was forced to sit through with a giggle to indicate she didn’t really care.
UPDATE
Some in the press gallery disagree.
Agree with her or not,this is a pretty impressive performance.
#qanda8 hours ago
(Thanks to reader Victoria 3220.)
UPDATE
Q&A has form for ambushing a guest wilth questions from the latest darling of the far Left:
 26 comments | Permalink |
Carr drives away from crash
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (05:14 am)
Former Labor premier Bob Carr says he can’t defend the NSW Labor Government:
Mr Carr was invited to an Italian Chamber of Commerce function at the Westin hotel on March 21 to appear alongside former Liberal premier Nick Greiner, but declined the invitation.
In comments in a leaked email explaining the decision, Mr Carr said he did not want to create headlines.
Mr Carr’s February 1 email to the organisers of the function reads: “Sorry, love the Italians and the chamber and would relish a platform with my old sparing [sic] partner who I greatly respect.
“But if my colleagues fail to take my advice then I’m darn well not going to sit on [a] platform where I’ve got to defend them - and I’m not going to even hint at criticism and generate a headline in the middle of the campaign.
“Please explain this to Nick so he knows it’s not a snub, nor am I being unsociable.
“Try Morris.”
The warmists’ 10 biggest fibs
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, March 15, 11 (12:02 am)
Professor Bob Carter identifies 10 dishonest slogans in the global warming debate:
1. We must address carbon (sic) pollution (sic) by introducing a carbon (sic) tax.2. We need to link much more closely with the climate emergency.
3. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will punish the big polluters (sic).
4. Putting a price on carbon (sic) is the right thing to do; it’s in our nation’s interest.
5. Putting a price on carbon (sic) will result in lower carbon dioxide emissions.
6. We must catch up with the rest of the world, who are already taxing carbon dioxide emissions.
7. Australia should show leadership, by setting an example that other countries will follow.
8. We must act, and the earlier we act on climate change the less painful it will be.
9. The cost of action on carbon (sic) pollution (sic) is less than the cost of inaction.
10. There is no do-nothing option in tackling climate change.
Now read on as Professor Carter treats each of these slogans with a strong dose of truth.
What’s your next lying excuse, Wayne?
Andrew Bolt – Monday, March 14, 11 (02:22 pm)
This Gillard Government lurches from one lie to the next. Here is Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday trying to excuse the government should it go ahead and spend taxpayers’ dollars to sell its disastrous carbon dioxide tax:
I discovered John Howard had in his last budget before he went to the people with his emissions trading scheme which Tony Abbott supported and didn’t say that it would destroy jobs, that John Howard had a $50 million allocation in his last budget to advertise his emissions trading scheme.
So let’s go to that last Budget and see what that $50 million was really for:
Climate change — small business and household action initiative…
Department of the Environment and Water Resources…
The Government will provide $52.8 million over five years to increase community understanding of climate change and assist households and small businesses to reduce and offset their greenhouse gas emissions.
This measure involves funding of $29.1 million in 2007-08, $16.4 million in 2008-09, $5.9 million in 2009-10, $0.5 million in 2010-11 and $0.4 million in 2011-12. It also includes $0.5 million in capital funding in 2007-08 to develop an interactive intranet site to assist users to reduce their emissions.
Provision for this funding has already been included in the forward estimates.
Further information can be found in the press release of 4 March 2007 issued by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources.
Swan lied again. That is not money to flog Howard’s stupid promise of an emissions trading scheme but to flog Malcolm Turnbull’s silly scheme to make houses “greener”, which at least had the merit of giving us more trees and suggesting ways to cut power bills:
Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Malcolm Turnbull, said the Government was acting to help Australians use less energy and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
“If we have greener homes, we can contribute to a cooler planet,” Mr Turnbull said.
Under the initiative the Government will send Australians information about climate change and how to become more energy efficient, as well as helping them calculate their greenhouse gas emissions.
The Government will also offer households the opportunity to become a ‘carbon neutral’ household through its Greenhouse Friendly programme. This will involve purchase of abatement measures such as tree plantings.
No mention there of John Howard’s emissions trading scheme.
Another lie from the most dishonest government since Whitlam. Ugh.
What Gillard’s monster plan will achieve: 0.0007 degrees.
Andrew Bolt – Monday, March 14, 11 (01:46 pm)
The first question with Julia Gillard’s plan to cut our emissions must be: “How much will it cost?”
She won’t say.
The second question must be: ”By how much will it cut temperatures?”
She won’t say.
But Dr David Evans has now crunched the numbers to give us the answer - and warns that it comes with a giant assumption - that the theory of man-made warming is indeed as the IPCC claims:
Worth all those countless billions, you think?
(Thanks to reader Gab and others.)
No comments:
Post a Comment