The ‘new look’ Dept of Climate Change

Typing in http://www.climatechange.gov.au these days takes you to the Department of the Environment. It used to take you to the Department of Climate Change – back in the days when we had a government that had climate change as a high priority.

The big bold headline you are now met with is . . .

Carbon tax to be abolished from 1 July 2014

Rather presumptuous, don’t you think?

We clicking on a link invited to do so, we see . . .

The Australian Government will abolish the carbon tax from 1 July 2014. This will lower costs for Australian businesses and ease cost of living pressures for households.

Not only presumptuous, but now a bit of bullshit has been added for good measure. Here’s more of the bullshit:

Why are we removing the carbon tax

Repealing the carbon tax and the Clean Energy Package is designed to:

  • Reduce the cost of living – modelling by the Australian Treasury suggests that removing the carbon tax in 2014-15 will leave average costs of living across all households around $550 lower than they would otherwise be in 2014-15.
  • Lower retail electricity by around 9 per cent and retail gas prices by around 7 per cent than they would otherwise be in 2014-15 with a $25.40 carbon tax.
  • Boost Australia’s economic growth, increase jobs and enhance Australia’s international competitiveness by removing an unnecessary tax, which hurts businesses and families.
  • Reduce annual ongoing compliance costs for around 370 liable entities by almost $90 million per annum.
  • Remove over 1,000 pages of primary and subordinate legislation.

Rather odd, isn’t it?

I could have swore that on their site I read somewhere the claim that ‘We contribute to developing climate change solutions, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and adapting to the impacts of climate change‘.

 

Image courtesy of quickmeme.com

Image courtesy of quickmeme.com

13 comments on “The ‘new look’ Dept of Climate Change

  1. It all depends on you’re source. RE; climate change is crap; With the real-world effects of climate change constantly becoming more difficult to deny, this is not a sustainable situation. Eventually reality must break in, and there are signs that this is beginning to happen.>Murdoch news corp and Rinehart/Fairfaxnews. , found to be a major driving force behind global warming denial
    Read more:- http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/08/global-warming-denial-fox-news.

  2. On the claim of reducing the cost of living..not while there is no onus on businesses to pass their savings onto consumers. Of course the government should the repeal of the carbon tax eventually make its way past the Senate, will say that savings should be passed on..but we all know about the likelihood of that happening.

  3. Co2 @ 400ppm+++and rising 😥
    ….. and never mind the ‘lag’ period – re: ‘remediation’ 😯
    ….. “little lone” the perma-frost and Methane Hydrate issue 😥 😥 😥 😦
    …. these RW idiots have “looked themselves over there so far up their own arseholes” that they have failed to perceive the economic benefits and profits to be made out of an collapsing ‘Water War+CC’ economy, 😛 😮
    ….. as the reality of CC grips the RWingers and they realise what fools they have been, (and then proceed to blame Labor for THAT FACT)… the stiff upperers will miss the opportunity for a ‘last creaming’ before the Tilt … like, water being worth more than petrol!!! (who’d a thunk 😕 ) or Katoomba being an ‘tourist ready’ sea-side town of the future ( who’d a thunk ) 😛
    … crikey, even the Yanks are building themselves a naval presences in readiness for an ice free Arctic by 2016-18…. and yes it’s ALL aboot the oil 🙄 …who’d a thunk 🙄 ( stoopid IS as stoopid US does )
    …… the energy argument will..soon..be ..replaced.. by ..the ..I..wanta…..drink……. argument, mm!…… but, hey…it’s years away before we haffta worry about ‘That’… f’n yars, ay ……. after all Sir Tonesalot will ‘deem’ his royal serfs water by a ‘decree of direct action’ and thus it will BE….. and if not, IT’S Labor’s fault.. who’d a thunk :/

  4. G’day All,

    So, can anyone point out to me where any of the five points listed actually itemise any reduction in CO2, or indeed any climate any sort of climate change amelioration? As far as I can tell it’s al labout economics. Surely that has fuckall to do with climate change.

  5. G’day All,

    Oops, “indeed any climate any sort of climate change amelioration?” should be “indeed any sort of climate change amelioration?”.

  6. Not forgetting that along with the CT repeal goes the repeal of the $18,000 tav free threshold which would have delivered around $2,500 into the pocket of a worker on the lowest marginal rate. By my reckoning that makes us $2,000 p.a. worse off… and I’m no Joe Hockey! 😛

  7. A couple of sites that deniers find difficult to manage are:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2012/04/120405-climate-change-waterborne-diseases-inuit/ ….. and ….. The Lancet Vol 358 July 2001.
    The article in the Lancet is about ticks being an issue brought about by climate change causing encephalitis. Quite an old article . The article states for personal use only so haven’t given the actual reference. It is possible to google it by…”climate change ticks in Sweden”, E Lindgren, is the author.
    The first reference is about Inuits in Northern Canada being prone to pathogens created by it raining when in the past it would normally have snowed and thaws are happening at a faster rate.

    An interesting clip about Greenland where they are acknowledging that climate change is happening :
    http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/11772995985/The-Big-Thaw

  8. Thank you for links, Keith.

    One of the most common questions I hear deniers ask is “why has there been no increase in temperature for the past 20 years?” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm)

    Apart from the fact that 20 years is not a long enough period of time to determine global changes, it reveals how little the questioner understands any science – also how short term their general frame of reference is.

    Many deniers think that the evidence for climate change is simply based on temperature only. There is a plethora of careful observations, documenting and studying not only weather patterns, but analysing ice-cores, habitat changes, tree rings (which reveal far more than just age), migratory patterns of birds and other animals as well as the spread of diseases. Haven’t mentioned changes to oceans – which is a massive study in and of itself.

    I have lost count of the number of times I have set out clear and succinct explanations to deniers – they do not want to know, but they do like to denigrate.

    Now we have a complete denier as leader of our country – his ignorance cannot be afforded – ever.

  9. NOW we’re worried about rules and regulations. You’re a few years too late Michael. Think of appointments to the bench (Murphy, Shaw, Kirby, Einfeld and then consider those very important RULES & REGULATIONS. Pure folderol.

  10. ShaunJ ,

    Exactly. Even Greg Hunt sounds more like Industry Minister..can’t remember last time he said anything about protecting the environment. All his statements are about the negative effect of environmental regs on business.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s