Greg Combet's name is being put up as a possible replacement for Julia Gillard here is a quote from respected journalist Terry McCrann on his stance in relation to China's pollution policy.

Everything, and I do mean everything, that [Climate Change Minister Greg] Combet and indeed prime minister Julia Gillard say on climate change is either a direct lie or a very deliberate constructive lie…

The lie from Gillard was that China was closing a coal-fired power station every fortnight or so… What Gillard, of course, didn’t say is that China Quote:is opening many more and much bigger, new coal-fired power stations…

Similarly Combet keeps claiming ... China is making huge increases in renewables.

Yes, they are making huge increases in the production of solar panels to sell to gullible politicians and the public in developed countries.

The lie to all this utter Combet crap was give by the latest IEA (International Energy Agency) projections, which showed China, already the world’s biggest emitter of CO2, ... will increase its annual CO2 emissions by something over 2.5 million tonnes… We will cut ours by around 150,000 tonnes. China is going to increase by 16 times what we cut. And India is going to pump as much extra as China.

And that’s only what we cut in theory. We are going to buy two-thirds of our CO2 “cuts” from Europe, via pieces of expensive bits of paper. We are only going to cut our real emissions by around 50,000 tonnes a year.

That is to say, China and India combined will add to their emissions by around 90 times what we actually cut.

Terry McCrann, that'll do me. ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D :D

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am:

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say: 1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million. 2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions. 3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument. 4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight. 5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us. 6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India. Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world. This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

skippy. wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

Terry McCrann, that'll do me. ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D :D

so are you saying that what McCrann has writen is incorrect?

Of course he is incorrect. He didn't actually quote either Gillard or Combet lying. As for 'constructive' lies, that's pretty much what his article is.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Of course he is incorrect. He didn't actually quote either Gillard or Combet lying. As for 'constructive' lies, that's pretty much what his article is.

Just to throw in a point on China's emissions.
In the timeframe of the Kyoto emission reductions.

**China's increases in carbon emissions were 5 times that of every other countries' reductions added together.**


But ssssssssssssshhhh we're not allowed to point that out.

Quote:

But ssssssssssssshhhh we're not allowed to point that out.

Of course you should point it out. You could even take it one step further and suggest how we should respond to the situation.

Irregardless of what the International Community says or does (does what?) China will do what it always does...just about whatever it bloody well pleases.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

Quote: But ssssssssssssshhhh we're not allowed to point that out. Of course you should point it out. You could even take it one step further and suggest how we should respond to the situation.

you usually respond by saying its all lies... without any proof..


freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Of course he is incorrect. He didn't actually quote either Gillard or Combet lying. As for 'constructive' lies, that's pretty much what his article is.

its ok though, alright for a lefty we know...


tell me this why is CHINA buying so much coal if it isnt using it??????????

of course combet doesnt mention what we will do when/IF our coal market dries up????????????..

in the mean time he is quite happy selling it..

is that whats called a double standard????

woof woof wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

skippy. wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 10:57am: Terry McCrann, that'll do me. ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D :D so are you saying that what McCrann has writen is incorrect?

as far as I know skippy wouldnt be caught dead reading the D.T.  funny how he knows so much about it though!!!! ::) ::)

Having spent some time there recently - and will do so again next month so I will be careful what I say - China really couldn't give a flying bugger about what the rest of the world thinks.

Which I actually find quite admirable.

Australia tends to worry terribly about what the world will think or sticking to 'more responsibility' clauses which much of the world just ignores.
Often to its own detriment.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

Quote: But ssssssssssssshhhh we're not allowed to point that out. Of course you should point it out. You could even take it one step further and suggest how we should respond to the situation.

by selling them as much coal as we can, no one opended more coal mines in qld than the labor bligh government.
we should also sell them as much liquid natural gas at 5 c a litre on 20 year contracts when the domestic price is set to double to 60 cents a litre in 3 years ;) ;)

this way all our manufacturers will certainly be doomed and we can import manufactured trinkets from chinese sweat shops on our international credit card.  when payment is due, simple, sell off the farm. ;)

It has always struck me as quite funny to some extent that the Government plays the moral card on carbon emissions and the need to reduce Australia's footprint.

Then in the same day sign off on a deal sending billions of dirty coal to China to be burned into the atmosphere in a dirty power station to release a load of carbon into the atmosphere.

Sssssssh, don't look over there. That's the Chinese, not us guv'nor.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

cods wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 6:53am:

freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 11:55am: Quote: But ssssssssssssshhhh we're not allowed to point that out. Of course you should point it out. You could even take it one step further and suggest how we should respond to the situation. you usually respond by saying its all lies... without any proof.. freediver wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 11:36am: Of course he is incorrect. He didn't actually quote either Gillard or Combet lying. As for 'constructive' lies, that's pretty much what his article is. its ok though, alright for a lefty we know... tell me this why is CHINA buying so much coal if it isnt using it?????????? of course combet doesnt mention what we will do when/IF our coal market dries up????????????.. in the mean time he is quite happy selling it.. is that whats called a double standard????

On China buying so much coal. . .

Would the lefties have us believing that the Chinese eat this coal?

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

Quote: But ssssssssssssshhhh we're not allowed to point that out. Of course you should point it out. You could even take it one step further and suggest how we should respond to the situation.

Big swingers don't have to come up with solutions: their role in life is to just grizzle and stare the kids out behind a pile of weapons as if they were in constant infected anger mode!  ;D ;D

** GO BABY BOOMERS!  :o

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 6:55am:

Having spent some time there recently - and will do so again next month so I will be careful what I say - China really couldn't give a flying bugger about what the rest of the world thinks. Which I actually find quite admirable. Australia tends to worry terribly about what the world will think or sticking to 'more responsibility' clauses which much of the world just ignores. Often to its own detriment.

CHINA IS AMERIC PLUS A BILLION... WHY WOULD THEY CARE?  :o :o

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 11^th, 2013 at 6:55am:

Having spent some time there recently - and will do so again next month so I will be careful what I say - China really couldn't give a flying bugger about what the rest of the world thinks. Which I actually find quite admirable. Australia tends to worry terribly about what the world will think or sticking to 'more responsibility' clauses which much of the world just ignores. Often to its own detriment.

When they all choke on the stinking smog of their cities, I’m sure I know to who’s detriment not giving a bugger will be.

;)

FriYAY wrote on Mar 12^th, 2013 at 3:22pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 11th, 2013 at 6:55am: Having spent some time there recently - and will do so again next month so I will be careful what I say - China really couldn't give a flying bugger about what the rest of the world thinks. Which I actually find quite admirable. Australia tends to worry terribly about what the world will think or sticking to 'more responsibility' clauses which much of the world just ignores. Often to its own detriment. When they all choke on the stinking smog of their cities, I’m sure I know to who’s detriment not giving a bugger will be. ;)

lets be honest and accept that Chinas actino on clean energy is solely because their cities are nearly uninhabitable to such an extent that there is a company actually selling CLEAN AIR in a can.