Australian and Canadian PMs launch alliance against economy-crippling Green policies

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2654115/Australian-PM-Tony-Abbott-invited-UK-join-alliance-like-minded-nations-limit-action-climate-change.html

Australian PM Tony Abbott calls for alliance with UK to counter Obama's 'left-liberal' agenda to raise taxes and 'unwise' plan to address global warming

- Abbott made comments during meeting with Canadian PM in Ottawa
- British Government says it has not been offered alliance and will not join
- United Nations summit on climate change is planned for September


http://www.ezimba.com/work/140612C/ezimba18887517407000.png
Anglosphere alliance: Australian PM Tony Abbott (left) and Canadian PM Stephen Harper (right) at the Canadian Houses of Parliament


Australia and Canada have invited the UK to join an alliance of ‘like-minded’ nations to limit action on climate change.

The two countries have each rolled back green policies in recent months, and want others to join them to resist a legally-binding international deal on carbon emissions.

Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, called for limited action on climate change that would not ‘clobber the economy’.

He is seeking to form a conservative alliance that aims to undermine what he calls a ‘left-liberal’ push by US President Barack Obama to ramp up green taxes.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/10/article-2654115-1EA1411900000578-329_634x403.jpg
Tony Abbott (left) suggested that the UK could enter into an allianceto limit action on climate change at an event in Ottawa with Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper (right)


Like Canada’s prime minister Stephen Harper, who withdrew his nation from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, Mr Abbott has moved to repeal Australia’s carbon tax.

The British Government last night distanced itself from the Canadian-Australian alliance, insisting it had not been approached and was, in fact, ‘leading from the front’ on climate change.

Mr Abbott, standing alongside the Canadian leader during a visit to Ottawa, said: ‘We think that climate change is a significant problem, it’s not the only or even the most important problem the world faces but it is a significant problem and it’s important every country should take the action that it thinks is best to address emissions.’

He said no country would ever take action that would harm its economy, adding ‘we are just a bit more frank about that than other countries’.

‘It’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change,’ he said.

‘We seek to deal with it in a way that enhances our ability to create jobs and growth, this is their position.’

He said efforts are underway to form a new ‘centre-right’ alliance including Britain, as well as India and New Zealand.

Climate change is due to move up the political agenda in the coming months, with a United Nations summit on climate action planned for September, to be hosted by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

It will lay the groundwork for a legally-binding global deal on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to be agreed in Paris in December 2015.

Mr Obama, who sees strong action to stop climate change as a legacy issue as his presidency draws to a close, last week announced plans to cut pollution from power plants by 30 per cent by 2030.

The British Government, meanwhile, has gathered an anti-green reputation in recent months, after David Cameron reportedly told his officials to get rid of the ‘green c**p, his party promised to cap the number of onshore wind turbines, and officials slashed subsidies for large solar farms.

Holy **** sauce! Two world leaders with some common sense for once, i'm stunned.

Of course whether they'll back this up with actions remains to be seen, as you'd be a fool to not be sceptical of most politicians. That said though at least on this issue, both Abbott and Harper seem to have a good record and both realise - unlike Obama and Cameron - that if global warming climate change is caused by mankind, then there's nothing we can do to stop it other than ask India and China to remain third world nations... something that would be unethical and laughed at even if we tried.

In short, they've got it right. IF it is happening, then the best and only way to 'tackle' it is by adapting as any changes come. How nice it would be though to have even a mildly conservative-minded government with some rationality in office though, we Britons can only dream of it... This sort of alliance though is where Britain should be leading in, rather than ignoring. We've much more in common with our shared history with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and others than with either Europe (and the EU) or the United States.

Thoughts?

[Sian]

give it a couple hundred years and the earth's natural cycle will have healed all this climate change stuff. Also we still don't properly know how the earth works. So for once, I don't blame these two leaders for actually being truthful and sticking with stuff that suits their country.

[Brad]

Leave it to the Canadians and Australians to actually consider an alternate reasoning apart from the American reasoning and an applicable solution for taking strides to save the climate, and try to eliminate our carbon foot print. I know we can't be too hopeful, but I've been seeing Canadian government parties wanting to stay clear of looking like a mini USA.

[The Don]

Can’t help but laugh at all the pseudo-scientists in this thread pretending they know about climate change, and claiming that it’s not harmful or something to be concerned about. I guess you should start writing to NASA and the thousands and thousands of scientists and institutions that all seem alarmed by climate change. But hey, they've only spent their whole lives studying it and you've all read a couple of alternative articles, most likely published by an under qualified shill :rolleyes:

[lemons]

save the trees

[-:Undertaker:-]

Can’t help but laugh at all the pseudo-scientists in this thread pretending they know about climate change, and claiming that it’s not harmful or something to be concerned about. I guess you should start writing to NASA and the thousands and thousands of scientists and institutions that all seem alarmed by climate change. But hey, they've only spent their whole lives studying it and you've all read a couple of alternative articles, most likely published by an under qualified shill :rolleyes:

'Experts' also told us that the Euro was a fantastic idea, that invading Iraq would be a piece of cake and that Saddam Hussein had WMD. They also told us that post-war town resettlement was a fantastic idea, as well as the need for mass Eugenics at the turn of the 1900s. They were proven wrong.


''We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.'' - Harold MacMillan

I look at past weather cycles, and make the cautious and ONLY level headed observation that the only thing you can do if the globe is warming is adapt to the changes rather than stall them.... because even if we are causing changes, they're only going to intensify as countries such as China and India along with the rest of the third world begin (and hopefully) pull themselves out of poverty. Period, end of story.

Abbott and Harper are doing what makes sense on a realpolitik level, rather than Obamaland idealism.

[The Don]

'Experts' also told us that the Euro was a fantastic idea, that invading Iraq would be a piece of cake and that Saddam Hussein had WMD. They also told us that post-war town resettlement was a fantastic idea, as well as the need for mass Eugenics at the turn of the 1900s. They were proven wrong.

The fact that you're comparing Climate change (where scientists have data which they can measure and study themselves) with the Euro (where DIFFERENT people PREDICTED something) is laughable. In one case they have data which they can study, and the other they (Different people though) are merely speculating on something.


They also told us that post-war town resettlement was a fantastic idea, as well as the need for mass Eugenics at the turn of the 1900s. They were proven wrong.

Wow, this clearly shows how ridiculous you are. For starters you must be mad to attempt to compare Eugenics, which is a belief, a concept, something which cannot be measured, to a physical change which is taking place, which can be recorded and can actually be measured to study the change in it by comparing data. Not to mention the fact you seem to think you (a politics undergraduate) seem to know better than an overwhelming majority of accredited and published scientists who have spent more years than you have living, studying the subject themselves. Literally couldn't make this stuff up.


I look at past weather cycles

Are you seriously trying to suggest you're educated enough on the topic to disagree with the mass majority of environmental scientists?

[FlyingJesus]

The bigger issue for me that concerns Harper's mindless assault on the planet is that he's doing it all illegally. The land he wants to destroy in order to build a big oil pipe belongs by law to the First Nations people and is not property of the government. If you approve of what he's doing you approve of unchecked powers of eminent domain without even the most basic compensation by way of a please or thank-you, which would be a rather odd stance for someone who claims to prefer as small a government as possible. It's not a simple matter of one person believing in global warming and another ignoring it, it's about a tyrant putting the rights of government over the rights of the people

[-:Undertaker:-]

The fact that you're comparing Climate change (where scientists have data which they can measure and study themselves) with the Euro (where DIFFERENT people PREDICTED something) is laughable. In one case they have data which they can study, and the other they (Different people though) are merely speculating on something.

Not at all, you think the Euro wasn't studied before it was introduced by high ranking government figures as well as academics in Economics? Then again, i'd believe you if you told me they didn't properly study it given the immense **** up it turned out to be.


Wow, this clearly shows how ridiculous you are. For starters you must be mad to attempt to compare Eugenics, which is a belief, a concept, something which cannot be measured, to a physical change which is taking place, which can be recorded and can actually be measured to study the change in it by comparing data. Not to mention the fact you seem to think you (a politics undergraduate) seem to know better than an overwhelming majority of accredited and published scientists who have spent more years than you have living, studying the subject themselves. Literally couldn't make this stuff up.

AGW is also a theory that cannot be properly measured as how can you properly seperate what may be natural from mankind? You can't know for certain. But this is the problem with you lot, because even when I go as far to say that we accept it is happening just for the sake of argument - you can't even accept to have a debate on the basis of what do we do because to you I MUST accept the world is going to end via AGW for us to discuss the matter.


Are you seriously trying to suggest you're educated enough on the topic to disagree with the mass majority of environmental scientists?

Going against the consensus on any issue doesn't mean you are wrong, some of our greatest thinkers (in every field) did so.

I think my view is pretty clear though and makes perfect rational sense, that even if I accept that AGW is real and it is happening that it is best to adapt and change as it happens. That's the only rational response to this(?) unfolding change in the climate. My deep opinion on the matter however is that it's simply a natural cycle but that's irrelevant as i've said that any changes that do occur should simply be adapted to.

In short, if we go with Abbott and Harper (as I would) then we lose nothing if AGW turns out to be a giant scientific fad. If we go with the Obama/EU logic on this, then we destroy our manufacturing base and make no difference to the temperature of the earth anyway given how much India and China are going to continue to develop for the next few decades.

Realpolitik or idealism, your choice.


The bigger issue for me that concerns Harper's mindless assault on the planet is that he's doing it all illegally. The land he wants to destroy in order to build a big oil pipe belongs by law to the First Nations people and is not property of the government. If you approve of what he's doing you approve of unchecked powers of eminent domain without even the most basic compensation by way of a please or thank-you, which would be a rather odd stance for someone who claims to prefer as small a government as possible. It's not a simple matter of one person believing in global warming and another ignoring it, it's about a tyrant putting the rights of government over the rights of the people

I don't agree with compulsory purchase orders of any kind from a moral point of view, and I would expect as much outcry over the pipeline going through tribe lands as I would for properties that this government will purchase by force to build HS2 for example.

Ultimately though, the Canadian Government is sovereign (as is ours) and has the last say on compulsory purchases.

[The Don]

Not at all, you think the Euro wasn't studied before it was introduced by high ranking government figures as well as academics in Economics? Then again, i'd believe you if you told me they didn't properly study it given the immense **** up it turned out to be.


If you can’t comprehend the difference between predicting the success of one thing, and already having recorded data on another then there isn’t much more to discuss.


AGW is also a theory that cannot be properly measured as how can you properly seperate what may be natural from mankind? You can't know for certain.

It can because there is a human fingerprint on it found through comparing CO2 levels to CO2 emissions:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif

Scientists can analyse the types of carbon found in the air and use this to determine where the rising co2 comes from. Not to mention the fact that oxygen levels are consistently falling with the burning of fossil fuels…

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_vs_oxygen.gif
source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1


think my view is pretty clear though and makes perfect rational sense, that even if I accept that AGW is real and it is happening that it is best to adapt and change as it happens. That's the only rational response to this(?) unfolding change in the climate.

Not at all, the rational and logical thing to do is to prevent it from getting worse. If you look at the massive subsidiary’s supporting fossil fuels, the added costs in health care and air pollution, there isn’t a massive price difference between them and renewables, with renewables arguably being cheaper.

[Chippiewill]

give it a couple hundred years and the earth's natural cycle will have healed all this climate change stuff.
In the past 150 years levels of green house gases have increased by 40%, previous evidence of the Earth's atmosphere and climate records have shown the earth's temperature is HIGHLY sensitive to fluctuations in the levels of green house gases. Further, there are several positive feedback mechanisms for climate change, as polar ice caps shrink they transition from a highly reflective white to a highly absorbent black - accelerating climate change at an alarming rate.


Also we still don't properly know how the earth works.
Just because you do not understand climate science does not mean that climate scientists do not know enough on this matter to understand the situation.


'Experts' also told us that the Euro was a fantastic idea, that invading Iraq would be a piece of cake and that Saddam Hussein had WMD. They also told us that post-war town resettlement was a fantastic idea, as well as the need for mass Eugenics at the turn of the 1900s. They were proven wrong.
Alas, they were not climate scientists with a 97.1% consensus.


I look at past weather cycles.
I think this demonstrates just how ludicrous your position on climate change is. Looking at weather - not climate.

[FlyingJesus]

it r cold in winta so no grenehouse affect ok