NSW bushfires politicized by Greens and the UN to push a Carbon Tax
Adam Bandt is a typical Greenie, and because he, like all the rest of them, is on an ideological crusade and possesses no brains, he is unable to understand even the basic facts about Australia’s contribution to “global warming”, which is why Bandt has claimed on social media that the Coalition’s climate policy will cause more bush fires, like those suffered by many areas yesterday.
Never mind the fact that over 100 homes may have been destroyed and many others damaged by the fires (which were intense due to a strong wind, but not at all unusual or unprecedented), Bandt was more interested in scoring cheap political points.
And being the brainless greenie he is, he continued to defend the indefensible today:
Mr Bandt said the link between extreme weather events and global warming needs to be recognised.
“Global warming is the biggest threat to Australian life,” he said.
“I don’t want every summer, let alone every spring, for us to be worrying about whether we are going to see these kind of bush fires again, to have to worry about threats to people’s property and threats to people’s safety.”
Not quite sure why Bandt finds this so difficult to comprehend, but Australia’s emissions are 1.5% of the global total. If we reduced that to zero overnight, it would make no difference at all to the climate. As it is, we are only planning to reduce by 5% by 2020, or in other words, 0.075% of global emissions, when the major emitters are doing close to nothing by comparison.
And Bandt thinks that will make a difference to bush fire frequency or intensity?
Idiotic statements like this will ensure the Greens are consigned to the sewer of Australian political history, where they rightly belong, from whence they shall be flushed out into the sea with all the other turds.
There is “absolutely” a link between climate change and wildfires, U.N. Climate Chief Christiana Figueres told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Monday.
Wildfires are raging in a ring around Sydney, Australia, as that country experiences its hottest year on record.
“The World Meteorological Organization has not established a direct link between this wildfire and climate change – yet,” Figueres said. “But what is absolutely clear is the science is telling us that there are increasing heat waves in Asia, Europe, and Australia; that there these will continue; that they will continue in their intensity and in their frequency.”
Australia’s new prime minister, Tony Abbott, has expressed deep scepticism about climate change, once even calling it “absolute c**p” (he has since walked those remarks back).
Abbott is trying to get rid of Australia’s carbon tax and has dissolved its climate change commission.
“What the new government in Australia has not done is it has not walked away from its international commitment on climate change,” Figueres told Amanpour. “So what they’re struggling with now is not what are they going to do, but how are they going to get there.”
The U.N. climate chief said that she believed the Australian government would pay a very high political and economic price for straying from the path established by the previous Labor government.
“We are really already paying the price of carbon,” Figueres said. “We are paying the price with wildfires, we are paying the price with droughts.”
Proponents, Figueres included, believe that it is only by putting a tax on carbon – on fossil fuels – that the true cost of energy, taking into account the effect on the environment, can be reflected.
“We have very little time,” she said. “The important thing is that we still have time, although inasmuch as we delay, we are closing the window upon ourselves.”
Right now, Figueres said, emissions are still rising; humankind has to get past peak emissions by the end of the decade, she said, so that zero net emissions can be achieved by the second half of the 21st century.
“What we have seen are just introductions to the doom and gloom that we could be facing. But that’s not the only scenario,” she told Amanpour. “We could – as humankind – we could take vigorous action and we could have a very, very different scenario. That’s a scenario that is worth examining.”
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions related to energy consumption dropped to their lowest point since 1994 last year, according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration report released Monday afternoon.
The decline of coal as a power source in favor of natural gas in the U.S. is a big part of that decline, the EIA reported.
Natural gas power generation increased by 211.8 billion kilowatt hours in 2012 over 2011, while coal power declined by 215.2 billion kilowatt hours last year.
The EIA reported that 2012 was the fifth year in a row that energy related carbon emissions declined after peaking in 2007, despite GDP growth. Emissions declined 3.8 percent in 2012 over 2011.
“Although GDP increased by 2.8 percent in 2012, energy consumption fell by 2.4 percent in 2012,” according to the EIA report. “The emissions decline was the largest in a year with positive growth in per capita output and the only year to show a decline where per capita output increased 2 percent or more.”
The total carbon intensity of the U.S. economy declined in 2012 by 6.5 percent over the previous year — the largest drop since recordkeeping began in 1949 — mainly because the public has been eschewing coal for natural gas as a primary source of electricity.
The shift from coal to natural gas for electricity generation and slower economic growth were the main factors in reducing U.S. carbon emissions from 2007 to 2012 as compared to the previous 10 years said EIA analyst Perry Lindstrom.
figueres is a filthy UN globalist..she will accept nothing but a global tax on co2 emissions..even if other proposals lower emissions..they arent allowed..it must be a tax..but as we can see from the last article i have linked, the USA has lowered its emissions to 1994 levels without a carbon tax..so it can be done..and thats by the biggest emitter in the world..
and why do we have to lower emissions?
“Australia’s emissions are 1.5% of the global total. If we reduced that to zero overnight, it would make no difference at all to the climate. As it is, we are only planning to reduce by 5% by 2020, or in other words, 0.075% of global emissions”
figueres says fires and climate change are linked but then says this:
“The World Meteorological Organization has not established a direct link between this wildfire and climate change – yet,”
huh? so you are using the fires to develop your lie and meme but have nothing to base it on?
as does adam bandt, the greenie blowing his alarmist trumpet and directly linking the fires with climate change and the carbon tax even though no science exists to back his claims..the facts are australia has 50,000 bush fires a year..thats what happens here..we have had worse fires than this decades ago..so we are not seeing extremes that have never been seen before,..its all part of the natural process..especially with the amount of fuel in the country due to the wet winters of the past 3-4 years..
so here is my question:
when is an extreme weather event NOT attributable to climate change/global warming etc etc?
i look forward to getting some answers
Environment Minister Greg Hunt said Ms Figueres had indicated “very clearly and strongly” that there wasn’t evidence the fires ravaging parts of NSW were caused by climate change.
“She felt that that had been misrepresented,” Mr Hunt told BBC radio.
The Environment Minister said he “looked up what Wikipedia” says about bushfires and it was clear they were frequent events that had occurred during hotter months in Australia since before European settlement.
Mr Hunt said he accepted the science of climate change and need for action, but the Bureau of Meteorology had warned against making any direct link between global warming and natural disasters.