Australia to Cut Global Warming Funding by 90%

madanthonywayne

madanthonywayne

Morning in America
Registered Senior Member
An interesting bit of news from our friends down under.

Australia’s conservative coalition is set to cut more than 90 percent of the funding related to global warming from their budget, from $5.75 billion this year to $500 million, over the next four years.

Environmentalists and leftist politicians in the country protested the move by conservative Liberal Party Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s governing coalition to slash funding for climate programs, arguing such funding for green energy and reducing carbon dioxide emissions were necessary to stop global warming.

But Abbott’s government shot back, saying that the country needed to reduce the size of government and improve the economy.

“The coalition government acknowledges the role of renewable energy in Australia’s energy mix,” said Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane. “There is over $1 billion in funding for existing renewable projects to be completed over the coming years.”

“Given the tight fiscal environment as a result of [liberal] Labor’s legacy of debt and deficit, the government considers there is a very significant investment in renewable energy,” MacFarlane added.

Abbott’s Liberal-National coalition won a landslide victory in Australia’s election last fall. One of the main promises of Abbott’s coalition was to repeal the country’s carbon tax and costly environmental agenda.
Click to expand...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/19/aussies-to-slash-90-of-global-warming-funding-from-budget/
 
Idiocy. Were past the point of no return. An ecological disaster is a when not an if. I guess Australia wants it to happen sooner rather than later that's there call but we need to start preparing globally across national borders on a human plan to react. I know mad your going to poo poo this cause like all right wingers you seem incapable of believing your ideas can have negative consequences. Your playing with humanities future and rolling against long odds.
 
Interesting?
No, bloody stupid but then this is the same idiotic government who wants to cut all services and turn us into a little US at a time when the US
 
It's insane.

Abbott does not believe in climate change. He has openly declared this in the past. No one was surprised when he and his lapdog declared that they would cut funding for this.

One of his major campaign promises was also to not introduce new taxes or cut funding to health and education... What did he do instead? He cut all of the funding to the States for health and education and implemented a range of new taxes and is now trying to blackmail the States to increase the GST... The States should put their foot down and deny the Federal Government the right to access any funds from the very rich and wealthy mines, and from alcohol and tobacco taxes that they gleefully take, but decided to defund the States in the process.

It's not interesting. It is an absolute disgrace.
 
Bells said:
It's insane.

Abbott does not believe in climate change. He has openly declared this in the past. No one was surprised when he and his lapdog declared that they would cut funding for this.

One of his major campaign promises was also to not introduce new taxes or cut funding to health and education... What did he do instead? He cut all of the funding to the States for health and education and implemented a range of new taxes and is now trying to blackmail the States to increase the GST... The States should put their foot down and deny the Federal Government the right to access any funds from the very rich and wealthy mines, and from alcohol and tobacco taxes that they gleefully take, but decided to defund the States in the process.

It's not interesting. It is an absolute disgrace.
Click to expand...

unfortunately they can't because the commonwealth has powers over state taxes under the Constitution
 
Asguard said:
unfortunately they can't because the commonwealth has powers over state taxes under the Constitution
Click to expand...
They declared the States need to fend for themselves. I would imagine that would qualify. They have no qualms in denying the States the funds that are needed for health and education while they provide nothing for funding health and education in return.

They are going to have to buy so many votes to try to get this horror budget through. They have threatened a double dissolution, but good luck to them being voted back in after this last year. Meanwhile fatty is hosting dinner's which cost the tax payers over $50,000 and smoking cigars on Government property (illegal) and tells people that if they want to be able to afford going to the doctors, they should simply stop smoking and drinking beer.. And don't even get me started on raising the retirement age to 70 and forcing parents to remain financially responsible for their children until they are like 30. How in the hell are they supposed to find work if people are now working to 70? I think if the current GG pulled a Whitlam double dissolution at the moment, no one would complain. I would imagine insane happiness and cheering in the street. You know it's bad when even Howard comes out against what he is trying to do.
 
That is THE dumbest thing I've ever heard of!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah, they might as well de-fund all the emergency services and infrastructure 90% as well to save a few more bucks. Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!
 
Bells said:
They declared the States need to fend for themselves. I would imagine that would qualify. They have no qualms in denying the States the funds that are needed for health and education while they provide nothing for funding health and education in return.

They are going to have to buy so many votes to try to get this horror budget through. They have threatened a double dissolution, but good luck to them being voted back in after this last year. Meanwhile fatty is hosting dinner's which cost the tax payers over $50,000 and smoking cigars on Government property (illegal) and tells people that if they want to be able to afford going to the doctors, they should simply stop smoking and drinking beer.. And don't even get me started on raising the retirement age to 70 and forcing parents to remain financially responsible for their children until they are like 30. How in the hell are they supposed to find work if people are now working to 70? I think if the current GG pulled a Whitlam double dissolution at the moment, no one would complain. I would imagine insane happiness and cheering in the street. You know it's bad when even Howard comes out against what he is trying to do.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% I would love to see Labor (and the minor parties) block supply and cause the government to be sacked. I was just saying with regard to your suggested for the states that unfortunately they don't have the constitutional powers to do it
 
Asguard said:
I agree 100% I would love to see Labor (and the minor parties) block supply and cause the government to be sacked. I was just saying with regard to your suggested for the states that unfortunately they don't have the constitutional powers to do it
Click to expand...

Shades of Gough Whitlam!!! :)
I don't believe I have ever seen so much complete opposition from all quarters against this lying rogue Abbott and his Treasurer...They lied there way into Government, and the people fell for it.
This isn't over yet......

A self confessed church going Christian, who is a male chauvinist, against science, and would dearly love to dismantle Medicare amongst everything else.
He just may have bitten off more then he bargained for though.

My only qualms is that Bill Shorten the Labor Party leader, needs far more mongrel in him, in his opposition to the budget.
He appears to be pussy footing around.
 
I wish Tanya Plebiscit or Anthony Albanese had been elected opposition leader. Shorten is useless, he had virtually the whole country opposing the government's policies and where is he? how much headway is HE making?
 
Asguard said:
I wish Tanya Plebiscit or Anthony Albanese had been elected opposition leader. Shorten is useless, he had virtually the whole country opposing the government's policies and where is he? how much headway is HE making?
Click to expand...


Agreed....Albanese was my choice.
 
madanthonywayne said:
He's a "self confessed" church going Christian?

Oh my. The horror.

In the US, politicians pretend to be Church going Christians.
Click to expand...
He means it in the sense that Abbott is the type of horror used it to describe the importance of no sex before marriage, before describing how his daughters were all virgins.. And I am not talking about 12 year old girls here. His daughters are in their late teens to early twenties and their father was describing how they were all virgins, based it on pseudo religious beliefs, to the country's media. I think the whole country felt embarrassed for them.

Not even touching on his comments to female politicians about their looks and how he likes the pretty ones to run for his party. The latest brouhaha was his winking and grinning while being filmed on radio when a woman in her 60's called and explained to him how as a pensioner, her life was so difficult that she was having to resort to taking sex callers to make enough money to make ends meet, since she is past retirement age, she cannot get any other job. This woman was clearly upset and distressed. Instead of treating her with some respect and providing her with the information she was requesting about the changes to the pension and day to day living that his Government is proposing with the budget, he acted like an actual perverted creep, winked at the radio host and the now shocked programmers, and then started smiling as though this woman's distress was funny. No one else was laughing in the room. It has resulted in his being seen to be a pervert and a creep by many women across the country. Church going Christian indeed. I mean, the man once told a room full of people who were struggling to make ends meet how he understood their plight because he had to borrow over $700,000 to make ends meet as well.. So he understood the plight of lower income earners who are struggling. Because everyone can borrow and pay back $700,000 in a year to make ends meet..

For a self confessed church going Christian, he lacks all compassion and understanding.
 
In the midrange, after these delays and political fiascoes, many places will face bankrupting emergency needs from the effects of climate changes - the choice of dealing with the causes or the effects, without money to do both, may be a common one.

Oh my. The horror.

In the US, politicians pretend to be Church going Christians
Click to expand...
And it works here, too. that isn't a horror?

The creeps come from what that reveals about one's neighbors, the voters.
 
The earth and nature is all about change. It not about preserving one aspect of its natural history, because this suits the liberals.

If we assume climate change is real, there will be winners and losers. There will be places where a much better outcome will appear than previous. If things warm up, there will be cold places that suddenly have a nice warm summer. This is good. This is nature's way of redistributing the wealth. One area may lose their beach front property, as the oceans rise and the coast moves inland. Someone inland will gain a beach front. Why do the haves, based on this particular climate, need to be protected, and why not allow natural redistribution?

The problem is liberals are taught dependency. The conservatives learn self reliance. The lack of self reliance in favor of dependency makes it harder for liberals to cope with even natural change. The conservatives assume they will adapt and will not go extinct like the liberals. Liberals like laws and regulations to force everything into a tiny box of conformity. This is fragile and can't handle change.

A more open and free POV makes it possible to adapt to natural change. The right wing has the tools of natural selection on its side. Liberalism is more about unnatural selection, via force and law, that fights nature in favor of high cost artificial. Changes in climate is not for the rigid, but rather is for the flexible and those who understand the nature of earthy change that is part of its entire history. Unnatural may not see this.
 
wellwisher said:
The earth and nature is all about change. It not about preserving one aspect of its natural history, because this suits the liberals.

If we assume climate change is real, there will be winners and losers. There will be places where a much better outcome will appear than previous. If things warm up, there will be cold places that suddenly have a nice warm summer. This is good. This is nature's way of redistributing the wealth. One area may lose their beach front property, as the oceans rise and the coast moves inland. Someone inland will gain a beach front. Why do the haves, based on this particular climate, need to be protected, and why not allow natural redistribution?

The problem is liberals are taught dependency. The conservatives learn self reliance. The lack of self reliance in favor of dependency makes it harder for liberals to cope with even natural change. The conservatives assume they will adapt and will not go extinct like the liberals. Liberals like laws and regulations to force everything into a tiny box of conformity. This is fragile and can't handle change.

A more open and free POV makes it possible to adapt to natural change. The right wing has the tools of natural selection on its side. Liberalism is more about unnatural selection, via force and law, that fights nature in favor of high cost artificial. Changes in climate is not for the rigid, but rather is for the flexible and those who understand the nature of earthy change that is part of its entire history. Unnatural may not see this.
Click to expand...

Wow. Just wow. So the political ideology trying to prevent a major ecological disaster and prepare for it is rigid and will fail. While the one ignoring and aggressively lobbying to not prepare is the flexible one preparing for it? That's insane. The conservatives are the anti change group and thanks to their rufusal to prepare this country will be ruined by climate change
 
I'd like to say that this is idiocy and that it should be thrown down, but while I'm sure out of hand that global warming is a fact, I haven't reviewed the statistical evidence myself and so my comments would be unrooted.

I'm sure my pointless comment reassures everyone. Actually, is the core data online? I realise there are numerous studies.
 
For maximum irony, they should use the money to build a nuclear power plant, thus doing far more to reduce carbon emissions than it would as "global warming" funding!
 
wellwisher said:
If we assume climate change is real, there will be winners and losers. There will be places where a much better outcome will appear than previous. Why do the haves, based on this particular climate, need to be protected, and why not allow natural redistribution?
Click to expand...

That's true. As another example, if I am competing with your business, and our businesses share a shopping center, I might get excellent insurance and then have a friend burn down the shopping center. That would mean change. Afterwards there will be winners and losers. Did you wisely purchase insurance? Then you might win. Did you neglect to get good insurance? Then you will lose.

Surely you would not complain about such a change. After all, why should you be protected? Why not just let natural changes (like fire) redistribute things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top