The non-majority government of Australian PM Kevin Rudd has been dealt a serious blow, the after effects of which may push him to call early elections. After wrestling power from Liberal PM John Howard in 2007, much of Rudd’s initiatives have been met with reserved support from the opposition. His party’s global warming bill, however, may have been the proverbial camel-breaking straw.
The bill, which failed to pass the Australian Senate earlier this year, had undergone severe consensus building amendments prior to its reintroduction. Its newest form included broad measures to make carbon-based energy (such as those derived from coal) more expensive by means of a tax. Now, with its senatorial defeat, Mr. Rudd is off to Copenhagen empty handed. Perhaps an energy policy based on higher taxes was never a wise approach.
On the other side of the senate aisle a different type of climate change was occurring: a shift in power and political loyalties. A coalition of Liberals and Nationals used this opportunity to define itself as an opposition to be reckoned with when they elected a new leader, Tony Abbot, and stood fast against climate alarmism. Mr. Abbot was not only a critic of Rudd’s tax solution but is a sound proponent for Australia’s coal industry, an industry which is fast being realized as a domestic solution to energy security on both sides of the antipodes.
It seems the political tide may indeed be turning in favour of reason, though there are still severe obstacles to overcome. Rudd´s failure, along with the emails of East Anglia and inaction in the UN’s climate summit prove that climate alarmism is never a sensible political course. Unfortunately the revelations of the last few months will do little to correct years of panic-caused, unnecessary climate industry and infrastructure (such as Environmental Ministers in the highest levels of government). There is hope, however, that these developments will serve as a reminder to those in power that irrational fear does little to build true political consensus.
Search the blog
Calendar of posts
Blogroll
Pages
-
Recent Posts
- My final speech in Strasbourg – Two-seat parliament a perfect metaphor for the hubris and futility of EU project
- The European parliament: an apology
- COP21 climate agreement: An eye-watering amount of money for virtually no return
- £100,000 mis-spent?
- EU energy labelling: confusing consumers and creating problems for industry
Recent Comments
Jane Davies on The European parliament: an… catweazle666 on The European parliament: an… Sheila White on The European parliament: an… charles wardrop on The European parliament: an… Mike Maunder on The European parliament: an… Top Posts
- Move over Victor Meldrew!
- Bless the Bride: former Staffer Sally McNamara marries
- A spell in the salt mines
- In defence of shooting (and Prince William)
- The UN's Agenda 21
- To stop the deaths, we must stop the boats
- President Obama: a Leap in the Dark
- Tolkien: the Barcelona connection
- Deliberate, defamatory lies from the Mail on Sunday
Blog Stats
- 947,089 hits
- Add new tag
- Air fares
- Alan Johnson
- Al Gore
- Animal Welfare
- banking
- BBC
- betrayal
- Broughton Astley
- Brussels
- C02
- Cameron
- campaign
- CAP
- capitalism
- Carbon
- Climate Change
- CO2
- Constitution
- Copenhagan
- Credit Crunch
- Croatia
- David Cameron
- David Davis
- Education
- Elections
- emissions trading
- Energy
- Energy Security
- Environment
- EPP
- EU
- EU Presidency
- Europe
- Freedom Zone
- Free Speech
- Galileo
- Georgia
- Global Warming
- GM Food
- gordon brown
- Greenpeace
- Gurkhas
- Lib Dems
- Liberal Democrats
- Lisbon
- McCain
- Monetary Union
- No Campaign
- Obama
- OfCom
- Oil
- Peer reviewed papers
- pesticides
- Philip Lardner
- Politics Show
- Refereendum
- Referendum
- Renewables
- resignation
- roger helmer
- Russia
- Sarah Palin
- Sarkozy
- smoking
- Stem Cell Research
- St George's Day
- Tax
- The Freedom Zone
- Tobacco
- UKIP
- USA
- Vice President
- windfall tax
The peer-reviewed science journal Nature has published an article saying the emails do not demonstrate any sort of “scientific conspiracy,” and that the journal doesn’t intend to investigate earlier papers from CRU researchers without “substantive reasons for concern.” The article notes, “Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything.”
Philip — As Mandy Rice Davies famously said “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”. Frankly, if you can believe what Nature is saying, you probably believe in Father Christmas too. Read what the e-mails said, Philip, and try to understand it.