I live in Queensland, a very large, resource rich northern state. For too many years we’ve had Labor governments that have run with very populist themes and policies. And we’ve had Chief Scientists that have actively ignored evidence to implement Labor politics. [1]
Tonight Queensland Labor was annihilated at the ballot box and will likely be left with just seven seats in the 89-seat parliament. Yes. Annihilated.
Like many Queenslanders I was so excited about voting today. I was so pleased to be a part of a democracy and to know that ordinary people voting together could and would change the government and decisively. And yes we did.
Next year there is a federal election. If only federal Labor government would learn from this Queensland Labor defeat and start reversing its most inane and ignorant policies now… like the carbon tax.
There has been comment that federal Labor is in for as convincing a defeat. But a big difference is that the federal Opposition doesn’t have clear alternative policies or a popular leader.
Indeed on the big issues that matter to me, like climate change and the Murray Darling, the Australian Liberal party has policy that is as embarrassing and ignorant as that of the current federal Labor party.
I may have been excited about voting in Queensland today for Campbell Newman. But unless Tony Abbot, as the alternative Prime Minister, starts articulating sensible alternative policies on the issues that really matter federally he won’t be getting my vote next year.
And on the issue of the carbon tax...
There may not have been many people at the no carbon tax rally in Canberra last Thursday, but weren’t the penguin costumes great. [2]
What this and so many related issues need at the federal level is an articulate and committed opposition. But go to the federal Liberal home page and click on the environment policy and this is what you get: “Tony Abbott and the Liberals stand for real action to tackle the complex challenges of climate change, energy security and water scarcity.”
There is no water scarcity: the drought broke with flooding rains about 18 months ago. We need a federal government that acknowledges the need to plan for natural climate variability. We don’t need subsidies for businesses that want to sequest carbon as proposed by Mr Abbot.
Read more and it gets worst. http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Environment.aspx
**********
1. Deceit in the Name of Conservation
https://climatelab.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Review55-1DeceitinNameConservation.pdf
2. Much thanks to Jim S. for the photograph and for being there.
ROFL 🙂 🙂
You have adroitly missed it again.
But that's OK, I wasn't expecting anything else.
No...multi year drought isn't weather...it's a multi year drought!!!
What on earth did you think you were proving by stating that????
A 2 year run of floods isn't weather either....it's a 2 year run of floods!!!
And despite the very loud PR claims otherwise, they have both happened before and right next to each other as well.
Got nothing against USEFUL glossy reports and papers Luke....you are very good at missing the point...I will give you that.
And also: a)After 200 years the URBAN and particularly the URBAN bureaucratic, legislative sector does not understand its climate risk or its financial risk or its poor planning risks &
b) just wants to be subsidised- in which case the PRODUCERS want to know you're INVESTING WISELY in the best available PRACTICAL science and engineering to plan for that risk WITH SOME PROPER LONG TERM PLANNING AND LONG TERM VISION.
It's the old city socialised habit of failing to invest in infrastructure and then blaming the 'other side' for the problem and then pretending it has something to do with the MUCH MUCH SMALLER amount of PERIODIC subsidising of PRODUCTIVE industries....you know...the ones who put the roof over our heads, supply food for our tables, 24/7 power to our homes, massive export dollars for Australia, countless thousands of tax paying jobs etc....
A good rort if you can swing it...especially if your whole income is based on that massive public purse.
I also have nothing against science Luke....what possessed you to say that?
As always...and this has never ever changed....I severely object to the 'political agenda' that has attached itself to one particular branch of science and actually hijacked the science...making exaggerated claims about its veracity, quoting the ubsubstantiated outer limits of the 'best guess' ranges and then attaching stupid impractical policy to it and a mindlessly expensive political PR campaign.
It seems the wider electorate is also noticing this problem and it has probably played a part in the recent NSW and more recent QLD electoral result and the recent polling Federally.
Unfortunately, as you pointed out, the opposition will be most successful if it just stays quiet and doesn't provide good alternative policy.....let's hope they are at least hearing the message.
Multi-year drought isn't weather.
So which is it (a) after 200 years does the rural sector not understand it's climate risk (b) just want to be subsidised - in which case the taxpayer wants to know if you're using the best science and techniques for managing that risk - and with your cynicism obviously you're not and just want a free handout.
It's the old agrarian socialism of personally capitalising gains and socialising any losses.
Good rort if you can swing it.
(and gee wouldn't be worth spending money on education - imagine if the little dears want to do science - you don't believe in it - they might grow and produce (choke) glossy reports and papers)
Lukey Lukey,
If you knew about climate we wouldn't have need of the countless billions being spent on trying to pretend we do know about climate and creating policy and protocol that will solve nothing and cost us even more billions.
We could actually spend the money on sensible, practical projects like better access to health services and education and upgrading tired infrastructure and and and......
So pick one of two options 1) You don't uderstand climate enough to create a workable, practical policy or 2) Climate change might be happening and we can only come up with useless impractical reports that do nothing other than waste ever more amounts tax payers money. Which is it?
Your ability to miss the point is absolutely incredible Luke.
The climate is no more your friend than it is mine. You may or may not know more or less than I do about climate and weather....and I couldn't give a toss either way.
And you are STILL ignoring the main point about Agriculture and GDP.
If we weren't returning positive there would not be money available to assist individual areas or to pay for the programs you have highlighted....how fiscally illiterate can you get?
NO ONE has ever claimed we are not vulnerable to extreme weather events. What's currently on the table and costing BILLIONS does VIRTUALLY NOTHING practical to deal with that....repeat VIRTUALLY NOTHING!!!!!!
Farmers and all small business people are results orientated people Luke. They judge the success or failure of any enterprise on measureable RESULTS, not on flowery reports and political PR spin.
It appears from the latest election results in QLD that a significant portion of the electorate is the same.
More evidence that it was people and not climate change that killed the giants:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/scientists-get-to-the-bottom-of-what-wiped-out-australias-ancient-gentle-giants-20120323-1vnrk.html
And Bob Brown, the New World Order and agenda 21 want to take care of us all:
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/03/23/aun-handbook-for-world-domination/
Hi Robert,
We have the bureaucracy and you are right.
Only billions over 30 years? Man, those Yanks and Japs are killing us! As for the Europeans...they must really be clueless about climate.
What we need is a bureaucracy to tell us what the climate is going to do. Oz agriculture could be scientifically modelled - love that word! - along the lines of Nikita Krushchev's agrarian policies for the Ukraine. If either the climate or peasants are disobedient, there can be a remodelling of the population, and re-education of reactionary elements. Those elements can be addressed initially with affectionate and patronising terms such as "Debs, Debs Debs". Mind you, if they hear "SIGH", they'll know it's time to knuckle under, 'cause there'll no more Mr. Nice Nikita.