The Liberal Party in Australia’s parliament has a new leader.

Herald Sun Blogger and Columnist, Andrew bolt writes to me in an email:

Anthony, This may be a first: a major political party has dumped a global warming believer as leader and replaced him with sceptic who last month called AGW “crap”. Tony Abbott has tempered his public pronouncements since, but has today become the new Liberal leader, toppling warmist Malcolm Turnbull, specifically because he was the only one of the three contenders today to promise to delay the Government’s emissions trading scheme.

Bolt adds some background:

Following up with excerpts from new Liberal leader Tony Abbott’s memoir Battlelines, released in July.

On page 171 he quotes, with approval, Bjorn Lomborg:

“Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is man-made and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science, which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures.”

Abbott then adds:

“Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia (on emissions trading) could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions…. Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China’s increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia’s entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.”

He also questions what climate alarmists truly want:

“It’s hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they’re as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.”

======

Lest you think that Climategate had nothing to do with this political shift, please read what Bolt had to say about its impact in my previous post:

The Australian ETS vote: a political litmus test for cap and trade

Several MPs have indeed mentioned the emails in their party room speeches, and your correspondents miss the way MPs actually pick up things.

Andrew Bolt has one of the most read blogs and columns in Australia and is helping to educate both people and politicians alike on the true costs of climatic induced cap and trade, please visit his blog to show some support. – Anthony

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Following up with excerpts from new Liberal leader Tony Abbott’s memoir Battlelines, released in July. On page 171 he quotes, with approval, Bjorn Lomborg: “Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is man-made and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science, which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures.” Abbott then adds: “Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia (on emissions trading) could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.… Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China’s increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia’s entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions.” He also questions what climate alarmists truly want: “It’s hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they’re as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.”

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...