Thoughts on Australia’s Carbon Tax

So the Carbon tax has passed into law, and Tony Abbott is saying that the tax will be ”a new burden for families struggling under cost-of-living increases”. (SMH, 9/11/11)

But… the average remuneration package from the government is higher than the predicted average costs per household.

So… I don’t get it. Why are people so upset by the thought of the government sending them extra money? Are they going to feel “burdened” by it? Does Abbott believe that people are so opposed to the government fulfilling our environmental responsibilities that they would refuse free money out of some weird kind of principle?

I can’t wait to watch peoples’ reactions when Abbott tries to repeal the law and take that extra bit of money away from them, just to prove his point.

And what’s with trying to get it repealed anyway? How immature could you possibly get? Whether Abbott likes it or not, no matter how unusual the last election was, the carbon tax has been passed by a government elected by the people. The fact that he thinks he can stroll in and casually destroy something that we voted for is incredibly arrogant.

“Oh, but we didn’t vote for it! Ju-LIAR said there would never be a carbon tax!” people say. Yes, and notice how she almost lost the last election because of it? Labor’s support started dwindling as soon as Rudd backed away from the Emissions Trading Scheme. Clearly the voters wanted stronger environmental policies, not weaker ones. That should be obvious from the number of votes Labor lost to the Greens in the last election.

At the even more ludicrous end of the scale, we have Senator Barnaby Joyce declaring that it’s “a sad day when we reorganise our economy on the basis of a colourless, odourless gas … it is the height of foolishness.” (Source.)

Barnaby, Barnaby, Barnaby. You really don’t understand much of… well, anything, do you? Honestly, take some science classes or GTFO of our government, it’s just embarrassing for you and for us.


The ‘Great Moral Challenge’ of our time?

Read this short cartoon:

What Mother Nature thinks of us.

This is exactly right. As P.Z. Myers says, “Environmentalism is actually an act of self-defense.”

This is why I don’t understand how climate change can be called the ‘Great Moral Challenge’ of our generation. How is saving our own asses supposed to be all noble-and-stuff? I mean, if humanity was going to tackle climate change for purely altruistic reasons, then maybe we could pretend to be the heroes. We could get capes and everything. But when we finally get around to it, it will be because of self-interest.

Death threats for climate scientists – because THAT’S a convincing argument.

Denialists getting desperate, or is this just a Poe? Death threats are a pretty extremist way of trolling someone, which leads us to the depressing conclusion that this is for realsies.

“Australia’s leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats.”

Read the original article from the Canberra Times here.

The only thing not specified is whether the attacks are specifically related to the scientists’ positions on climate change, but since that’s the common factor with this group of people, I guess that’s what we’re meant to assume.

It’s so intensely ludicrous that it would almost be funny, if people weren’t being threatened with death. There’s a freakish kind of desperation at work here. Apparently if we kill all the climate scientists, climate change will stop happening! Hurrah!!

If only it were that easy.

Oh wait, that’s not easy. That’s just freaking insane.