To recap, the Direct Action scheme has spent 25% of the funds allocated to abate carbon. For that spend, it will theoretically abate 15% of the required 5% emissions reduction. Both figures are far too low by world standards.
Hunt believes that the full target can be achieved in the timeframe. No-one else does.
Hunt has derided his critics as ALP stooges and exaggerated the price of carbon under the ALP government ($1300) without an accompanying explanation.
Typically, it seems, much like his colleagues he’s afraid of criticism and prepared to exaggerate. So there’s nothing to see here, just move along.
Hunt claimed they gave him full approval. The Climate Institute clarified
the conversation just stating they saw the process as transparent and the projects had potential
I wondered, “Why would Hunt do that?”
My surmise is that those are the words of a man driven by self-doubt.
His course should now be clear. Hunt should admit he needs a better plan. A real ETS. It would cure his self-doubt too.
Bring on the climate change sceptics! It certainly makes the debate more colourful and exciting. It certainly sells more newspapers, ups TV ratings and increases web site eyeballs.
Certainly, the climate change sceptics language, phrases and even their countenance are often quite extraordinary.
But perhaps they have gone too far.
While these incidents are extraordinary, it does not address the real question at hand. It distracts from it.
So here is my question (I call it the child’s question).
How’s the weather lately? Is it the same? Is it getting better?
Even the anecdotal evidence is there. Every time there is a severe weather event, people affected by it describe it as the worst ever. Ignore the statistical evidence, but anecdotally people notice!
But statistically, why are weather records are tumbling like the Climate Olympics?
It might be just me but I don’t hear any facts from the sceptics. Which leads me to my real point. In the climate change debate, these sceptics in fact fail the basic rules of debate. Good debaters criticise the opposition and then present facts to support their case.
These people don’t. Perhaps they should. Perhaps then we can have a real debate.