“Nats would betray farmers if it waved through net zero”
That was the headline that introduced this story in The Australian today. I defy you to work out what that story is about, so I will tell you, and it was jointly authored by Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan. Here are the relevant quotes to help you see where it’s going which in my view the heading will inhibit anyone from reading. This is the first para.
Australian politics is obsessed with a target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Like so many political decisions, it is being sold as a sea of righteousness with no rocks.
Let me point out that this is a form of ironic statement where we are being instructed that the action is not righteous, in which there are plenty of rocks. The writers of this story do not think a policy of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 is a sensible policy. Now some more.
Climate politics has many quasi-religious aspects to it which, like many religions, breeds a cynicism at times, especially when the religion is forced on you. Absolute beliefs that tolerate no dissent; absolute belief, devoid of a highly scientific understanding by most followers. Compliance and tithings to a dogmatic sermon. Every word accepted as sacred and underwritten with hellish climate damnation if not adhered to. This religion also requires people to speak to you from the other side as many of the politicians and commentators talking about a 2050 aspiration will be dead by then. They won’t have to deal with the economic consequences or pay for the policy. Further, just as COVID-19 has hit us from left field in the past year, lots of other issues will emerge between now and 10 federal elections away.
The use of the term “religion” means they think the Global Warming mafia are a bunch of deluded fools who believe all kinds of stupid things without a sound basis for those beliefs. Here’s some more from the article with a few bits highlighted:
In regional Australia we have a clear memory of the sneaky pact between the federal and state governments to divest farmers of their property rights so as to meet Australia’s Kyoto targets. In 1990, the baseline year for our Kyoto commitments, Australia cleared 688,000ha of land. We negotiated a clause in the Kyoto agreement that allowed us to claim a “carbon credit” if we cleared less than this amount each year. This led to state governments imposing ever tightening restrictions on land clearing. Now Australia clears just 50,000ha of land a year. This is not enough to keep our farming land at a constant amount, let alone develop new areas.\ To put it another way, the emissions from people living in cities have gone up during the past 30 years, but their moral guilt has been eased by sending the bill to the bush.
Here is the nub of the article where the headline is drawn from:
This is why the Nationals have always been opposed to a net-zero target…. A net-zero emissions policy would destroy any hope of expanding Australian farming. If the Nationals supported net-zero emissions we would cease to be a party that could credibly represent farmers.
Here is the final para. See if you can detect their use of irony.
Last year, China brought online more coal-fired power than we have in the whole of Australia, and then China announced that it was committed to a net-zero emissions target by 2060. If you believe that, you probably believe Hong Kong remains free. The past year demonstrates that we should stop being naive and start focusing on the real issues that threaten the security and independence of our free country.
The heading above was the “Most liked” comment on the article. But you would have to read the story to know what is what it said. Here are some of the other comments that followed that one.
Very refreshing. The international climate change hoax is currently the greatest threat to this nation’s prosperity. When GetUp places an ad thanking Liberal Party members for their support you know the country is on its knees…. Only a modicum of research is required to demonstrate that the global warming scare is simply a get rich scheme for those involved in the renewables industry, a point of which these two politicians are well aware. But who to vote for in the future? Once again Barnaby has to step up to show the Coalition how silly Australia’s ‘climate action’ is. Unfortunately there’s no Tony Abbott around to crush the wet Libs. I used to consider myself an environmentalist- I took Environmental Law as part of my degree and was Law Students Rep on the Environmental Defence Society. But it just isn’t rational to believe that a gas comprising 400 parts per million in our atmosphere can cause the planet to heat. I read Prof Ian Plimer’s book and he backs up this position. In fact CO2 levels have been far higher in the past without causing warming. You take the stuff about rising sea levels. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. I have been visiting Fiji for 30 years and haven’t seen a single island swamped. In fact I have seen new islands forming. My parents had a beachfront property in NZ and periodically we would have storms that took away the front of our property. But the wave action would always return that sand. Until next time. Matt and Barnaby (plus Craig Kelly) are about the only rational voices in Canberra. The very well informed One Nation MP Mark Latham was on SKY News last night setting out in graphic detail who is behind the NSW Liberals lurch to the Green Left On Energy policy. The same faction that was beholden to Turnbull and gave their blessing to Morrison to get the top job. RE RentSeekers of the highest order with only one aim in mind and that is feathering their own nests with Other People’s Money.Lots Of Other People’s Money.In the name of Saving the Planet of course. Yes from that Rampant Global Warming That is predicted to see an increase of .5 of a degree Celsius in 70 years time. Not much of problem really by any stretch of the imagination.
Given how opaque the heading was for me, which almost stopped me from reading the article myself, these are the views the editor at The Oz did not really want anyone to read. That there were only 183 comments makes me think they succeeded. In any case, whatever the intention, I am happy to help spread their message because it is not heard often enough.