Prime Minister Tony Abbott has been widely criticized (including by the author) for his comprehensive attack on environmental protections in Australia from stripping pristine areas of protection to his selection of pro-development environmental officials to his endangering of the Great Barrier Reef. However, even when others change the subject, Abbott returns to one of his most controversial measures. When asked on the country’s leading morning show what he thought was his biggest achievement as Australia’s Minister for Women, Abbott said . . . repealing the carbon tax.
Here is the most remarkable twist since Nadia Elena Comăneci received her perfect 10 at the 1976 Summer Olympics: “Well, you know, it is very important to do the right thing by families and households. As many of us know, women are particularly focused on the household budget and the repeal of the carbon tax means a $550 a year benefit for the average family.”
Of course, women are known to value the health of themselves and their families as well as the environment even more highly. Indeed, they probably value those issues a bit more than a few hundred bucks, even if that is the true benefit of blowing away carbon limits. Moreover, Abbott’s estimate has been widely challenged. The increase in energy prices was attributed to increased infrastructure costs. There is not an expectation of a large reduction in costs associated with the lifting of the carbon limits.
Indeed, scientists in Australia have described an “environmental train wreck” created by Abbott’s policies. Moreover, his critics have noted that his past claims of economic benefits have not panned out. For example, he cited jobs as a benefit of allowing the logging of pristine forests in Tasmania but only one percent of jobs come from such cutting while fifteen percent come from tourism.
Polls shows an steady increase of concern over carbon in the environment in Australia, particularly among younger and more educated Australians. In the meantime, scientists have issued a new set of disturbing reports over climate change and its potentially disastrous impact on the planet.
20 thoughts on “Prime Minister Tony Abbott Is Asked For His Major Contribution To Women . . . He Cites The Repeal Of The Carbon Tax”
Why did Australia elect this guy? We have added solar to our entire house. We did have it to heat the pool. Then watching electric bills soar to $300/month we decided to cover the whole house. Our first bill after installation was under $30. At first we thought 12 years to pay for itself, but it’s going a lot faster. We also get credits for what goes back to the grid for others. Technically that energy should be free to whoever gets it, but not possible. We continue to hear others complain about utility bill increases. We’re three years in, have estimated much larger amounts so it may pay for itself in five years. Not bad.
I believe you and DBQ have made the same environmental point which many agree with. It will take an independent leader to unite the masses and we’ll see if the next two years produces one.
What’s the point in debating this; is anyone really going to change their mind?
The minute someone can make the republicans who hunt, camp and fish and the democrats who get the Sierra Club magazine each month realize they want the same thing, yes it will. When that happens the scientists turned political opportunists better start watching the horizon for pitchforks and torches.
Lexi: I have been up for hours. I used to live by a desert. When they said Global Warming we all were ready to throw in the towel. When they said Climate change then we were ready to hope for the best.
Carbon tax is another $money making scheme. Eventually, this will become clear to even the most dim witted. Did any one notice that when the temps got cooler, the elites talking point on this matter went from “global warming” to “climate change”? WAKE UP
What’s the point in debating this; is anyone really going to change their mind? Of course you’ll get the elitists in here thumbing their noses at the “under-educated”; a sure sign of frustration. Of course the corporatists are to blame, big banks, coal, oil, conservatives, white privilege, 1%ers, now 2%ers, GOP, K-street and on and on. I’m surprised you intellectual heavy-weights bother knocking about with the less sophisticated of the world. But thanks for sharing.
When clean renewable energy becomes cost effective, that’s the day the game changes. I heat my house with a wood pellet furnace. I have been doing this for 10 years. My pellets are produced here in the USA. The government did not help me with this. I paid for this myself. When solar energy becomes cost effective I will have to seriously consider it. It should not cost an arm and a leg to be green.
Not much of an argument from the 2 %ers
Paul C Schute.
I believe you once expressed an interest in the Amanda Knox Meredith Kercher travesty. This petition may interest you.
Paul C. Schultz – you are taking things too literally. All I am trying to say that trees are an inexpensive natural way to help the environment. No taxes involved. Some people view nature as being spiritual.
Paul C Schute
Carlyle – it doesn’t make any difference how much energy it outputs if it is not cost effective.
Well obviously a lot of people in Australia think that the ROI makes sense to them. In the beginning one would see houses with maybe 8 panels on the roof, today I am noticing houses with 16 panels and 20 panels. A program that I often watch called “Grand Designs” is about people building unconventional homes in the UK. Tonight’s episode was about a 4 story minimalist house in London with solar panels on the roof. The owner expects the panels to have paid off the initial investment in 5 years. The number of panels was IIRC either 4 or 8, I think 4.The program will be available on ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) iview for 2 weeks.
If the ROI does not make sense in the US it is that coal mines are not charged for the damage their product does to the environment.
It seems to me that most Turley commenters are like Tony Abbott, incapable of recognizing that solar voltaic if not making sense now will do so in a couple of years.
Alternative energy is cost effective. The main problem is the status quo. There are trillions of dollars to be made in developing wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy. Other countries have partnered their governments and their private sector to create enormous wealth. Denmark exports 40% or the world’s heavy wind turbines at $10,000,000 a pop. Germany is building assembly plants in the US following lucrative contracts with various states like Colorado and Arizona. China is developing wind farms in Texas and elsewhere in the US, using technology it got from GE over the past twenty-five years under their 70% built in China policy.
However, the status quo of fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro owns and operates the electrical grid and major developers hesitate to build renewable energy in the US because they are at a disadvantage regarding access to the grid. The grid is so old and convoluted it is estimated that 15% of the energy that travels on the grid is lost. In more advanced countries the governments have been able to partner with the private sector to eliminate these problems.
Renewable energy is cost effective, provides high paying jobs, (unfortunately the highest paying jobs remain in Denmark, Germany, China, Spain, India, and the other countries that manufacture the turbines and solar panels and sell them to the US), and does what was just proven during the ‘tech revolution’, it moves money.
The lies about whether or not the use of fossil fuels is harming the environment come predominately from the 2% of the scientists in the bag of the status quo. Of course they are going to resist admitting what 98% of scientists have been stating for decades. It means that they lose their place at the sows belly.
What is unfortunate is the number of those who watch it walk like a duck, quack like a duck, mess like a duck, but call it an eagle. Somehow it is unAmerican to argue with the 2% of the scientific world in the pockets of the oligarchy that runs this country.
Killer jihadists, being released on bail for murder, and then killing Australians, pose a much more clear and present danger than some sky is falling unproven science.
“One percent of jobs come from such cutting while fifteen per cent come from tourism”. How does that justify logging in the Tasmanian forests and destroying nature’s way of reducing carbons.
“Poems are made by fools like me. But only God can make a tree.” Joyce Kilmer
They day that God comes down and plants trees like Johnny Appleseed, that is the day I believe Joyce Kilmer.
Tony Abbott is a hippy punching boofhead. To him the most important thing is to demonstrate his contempt for the dirty stinky hippies who believe that climate change is an issue. He would make an excellent commenter on the Turley Blog.
That he has chosen a time when the the weight of evidence is reaching a tipping point and when 1.5 million Australian dwellings have rooftop solar panels and solar is competitive with coal fired electricity over a period of six years even without subsidy.
The price of solar panels is on a precipitous decline and the technology is still advancing. The University of New South Wales has produced panels that convert 40% of the sunlight into energy.
Carlyle – it doesn’t make any difference how much energy it outputs if it is not cost effective.
Was he serious? Abbotts line of thinking seems moronic.
Assuming the $550 average “benefit” were correct (likely high), wonder what the median “benefit” to Australians would be? Would it even be even a $100? maybe less? Trading ones possible health for maybe only a sawbuck? Yep! That’s helping women.
I am not sure you can make broad sweeping statements like these. We do know that scientists have been lying about climate change and the human effect on it. I realize that $550 does not mean much to a guy who just got back from an extended trip to Italy but it does mean something to the ‘average person’ who is not a professor, gets TV gigs and extra legal work.
That is the tuition for one of the kids at ballet school or karate lessons, etc. I think it is a savings.
Comments are closed.