Climate alarm bombs in elections Down Under

Posted: April 1, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Emissions, ideology, Politics
Tags:

Sydney, Australia


Alarmists may love their own climate scare fantasies about trace gases, but the majority of Aussie voters in its most populous state are unimpressed. Realities like economics count for far more it seems.

Climate change played no role in determining the NSW election outcome. The Greens, the Coalition and Labor all of which had climate policies – all lost ground, reports The GWPF.

It was utter bunkum; but typical self-delusion by those ideological crusaders determined to do whatever it takes ‘to save the planet’ – at whatever the cost.

‘Climate change is now a more pressing matter for New South Wales voters than hospitals, schools and public transport’ asserted the green-left Sydney Morning Herald in the run-up to NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian’s outstanding victory.

And to reinforce the message against carbon emissions, it added that among the top environment concerns was coal.

Other media within this inner-city bubble of group-think unreality included SBS which warned pre-election that ‘Climate change will be a vote changer’, while the ABC inevitably listed environment on top, claiming that ‘Voters in dozens of seats appear to be signalling to parties that without a clear plan to address climate change they will be punished at the polling booth’.

But climate change played no role in determining the outcome.

The Greens, the Coalition and Labor all of which had climate policies that, to differing degrees, imposed heavy cost burdens on the economy and energy consumers involving job losses in industry, all lost some ground.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. johnmclean7 says:

    Wrong. It was a big deal for voters, just not those in urban electorates, which is as far as most commentators can see. For the two biggest electorates, which together cover the western half of the state of NSW, it was a big issue and the party that won both of those seats had very different policies on climate end energy to the major parties.

    The electorates are very largely farming areas and many farmers in those electorates are paying an annual fee of around AUD $70,000 for irrigation water (plus some maintenance on infrastructure) and this year receiving zero water. (Would anyone else like to pay $75,000 and receive about $5000 in value, all through no fault of their own?) Farmers near the Murray River are watching a near-full river flow past, the water destined for man-made lake where much of it will evaporate. This is according to a very daft climate-related policy. (FWIW, this policy means an estimated loss of about $3 billion in food exports each year.)

    Secondly farmers are concerned about the cost of electricity and the impact that unreliable renewable power will have on them. Dairy farmers use electrically-driven milking machines and pumps to move the milk around, and in winter they work in the dark. Sheep farmers use electricity for shearing machines. Food growers use electricity when washing, sorting, packing and refrigerating their produce.

    All of these farmers might wonder if energy policies will impact transport and therefore impact their ability to move their produce off their farms, Will they still be able to fuel their tractors, which tend to be the power sources for a lot of farming equipment?

    The party that won power in these two electorates thought that current climate and energy policies were daft and not in the best interests of the public. Seems like the voters agreed with them.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Still dreaming that trace gas carbon dioxide is a ‘pollutant’…

    Canada imposes carbon tax on four provinces with no climate plans

    Canada’s federal government on Monday made good on an ultimatum to impose a carbon tax on four provinces that haven’t fallen in line with its emissions reduction strategy.

    A starting levy of Can$20 (US$15) per tonne of pollution imposed on Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan—all led by Conservatives—will add about 4.4 cents to the price of a liter of gasoline, and drive up other energy costs too.

    Over the coming years it is scheduled to increase incrementally to Can$50.

    Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, however, pledged to refund most of monies directly to taxpayers, with those who aggressively cut their emissions reaping the largest rebates.

    https://phys.org/news/2019-04-canada-imposes-carbon-tax-provinces.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s