This should be required reading for a certain David Cameron.
If the way things go in Australia compared to the U.S. I would ascribe it more to a general distrust of any party that stays in power for too long. Administrations tend to overplay their hands regardless of the viability of any given direction in policy; in the U.S. we have the social welfare state that was created from the end of the Great Depression through the mid 1960s, followed by a period of political uncertainty, then the supply side economic theory ushered in during the Reagan years which held sway over policy for about as long as the policies of the 35 years between the Depression and Johnson's 'Great Society.'
These decades long dominance of one political philosophy over another might be extreme examples, but I believe the principle holds true that the voting public tends to let one party dominate for a couple of terms then by ballot shifts the balance of power to the other party. We've seen what happens when one or the other party or a particular philosophy dominates for too long-things get out of whack. Despite the hyperbole of the opposing viewpoints, I don't see it as anything particularly abnormal or signifying a sea change related to any single policy or issue, although there are sure a lot of single issue voters out there.
The underlying question is whether a carbon tax is a good idea or not. It seems to me that the uncertainty of outcome and developing climate research is giving the people and powers that be pause and that is not a bad thing at the moment, particularly in concert with the uncertain global economic and geopolitical situation. However, those who think they have it all figured out on either side of the argument...don't. I think we'll understand a lt more about climate in another 15 years, just as we have learned a lot in the last 15, and the new knowledge will influence us as much or more than economic and political issues are today. So I am not prepared to read too much into the outcome of the Australian election just yet. However, I will say this-I question the viability of the double whammy western and developed nations are being asked to absorb in the interests of mitigating AGW-in my opinion there is too high a risk of upsetting the economic and geopolitical apple cart given the proposals that are on the table. I would like to see more discussion and dialogue on these issues and less demonization of either side.
Simpletons - he is replacing it with a direct action policy to address climate change
As usual , you and the uber twit Flossie have no idea what is actually going on
His party :
- had a policy in 1990 to reduced CO2 emissions by 20% by 2000
- signed Kyoto in 1997 declaring it a win for the environment and Australian jobs
- took policy in 2007 to the election to have the worlds most comprehensive ETS
Is he also going to revert income taxation back to what it was before the carbon tax, run a larger budget deficit or cut services? And will electricity prices rise again because of higher demand? [1] [2]
I see you still misquote Ottmar Edenhoffer despite being corrected may times. This either makes you either stupid, or have low regard for the intelligence of other people and that they are stupid enough to believe your lies. Here is the full quote as translated by google [3] and the link to the original interview (in German) since you (claim to) speak German. [4];
---------------------
Basically, it is a big mistake to discuss climate policy separated from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we do not have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet - and we must settle only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no way around the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
Is the de facto expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
First time we've developed countries, the atmosphere of the world community virtually expropriated. But one must say clearly: We distribute by climate policy de facto the world's wealth around. That the owners of coal and oil, which are not enthusiastic, is obvious. You have to free themselves from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has to do with environmental policy, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole, almost nothing." [3]
-----------------
To show what kind of person Sagebrush is, here is a FULL AND REFERENCED quote by Sagebrush "Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch!" [5] And the FULL but DELETED answer (which I personally reported to both Yahoo and the FBI) "Execute all those who voted for OBAMA"
And as usual you will try to say I agree with "Richard Parncutt" (an Austrian professor of Music). so let me premept it by stating once again that the part I agree with the part "I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and I have always supported the clear and consistent stand of Amnesty International on this issue. The death penalty is barbaric, racist, expensive, and is often applied by mistake. Apparently, it does not even act as a deterrent to would-be murderers. Hopefully, the USA and China will come to their senses soon." The paper was titled "Death Penalty for Global Warming Deniers? An objective argument…a conservative conclusion." And who would deny that the death penalty is indeed a "conservative conclusion"? for people who are responsible for the death of 1 million people or more? Especially when you yourself have called for the execution of 62 million Americans for the "crime" of voting for the "wrong candidate".
Let me exoplain, I agree with the the bible "Thy shalt not kill/murder" . However there are many parts in the bible where there are explicit calls to murder people (for instance Deuteronomy 17:2-5 and Exodus 31:12-15 ) and I obviously disagree with those passages. As you can see I can still agree with parts of your holy book, while rejecting the main story. Not surprising your post show clearly that even you a (false) "Christian", disagree with the "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"
I'm pretty sure that Australians considered many more aspects than carbon taxation before electing their prime minister.
The question is really whether that was a major factor in the decisions of the Australian electorate. I'd suggest not.
Congratulations to Tony, perhaps now commonsense will prevail.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10293102/Tony-Abbott-to-be-new-Australian-prime-minister-after-landslide-win.html
