Look at you change gears and try to talk about other things when you get painted into a corner. I'm actually starting to enjoy myself watching you squirm.
So BP, could you please expand on this effort the USA is trialing so we can see how she hasn't lied.
I don't need to. I already have. Yes, America does have pilot schemes going, but no, it is not a national scheme.
And, expand for yourself. I have supported my claims, my work here is done. Now, if you have an argument to make about the scheme and how it differs so dramatically from the Clean Energy Future laws, then make it for yourself. I'm not going to do your research and make it for you.
The reason why Gillard has lied is because what they envisage is a lot like Abbott's Direct Action policy, and nothing like an ETS or carbon (dioxide) tax which is her (and was yours too) claim. Interesting how you have backed down and/or moved the goalposts now you've been called on that one
No it's not. They've done that because it is the second best option to pricing carbon. At best they were complementary measures to an emissions reduction scheme based on a market mechanism.
Are you aware of the difference (ETS v Direct Action)?
Yes. One is a sensible economic response to reducing pollution, proven in the real world through the trading of sulphur dioxide and CFC's in the 1970's and 1980's. The other is a half-cocked, hare-brained and uncosted, policy-on-the-run cooked up by Liberal Party spin-doctors that involves the tax payer paying big polluters tens of billions of dollars not to pollute as much.
Both are polices for reaching a bipartisan target of a 5% reduction in emissions. One is efficient and cheap, one is cumbersome and expensive. I support the efficient and cheap model.
If you like what the USA is doing, you must like Direct Action too, is that right?
I don't have to "like" anything to know that you are being dishonest in trying to cast the PM as a 'liar' based on comments she made that put Australia's plan into the contet of the bigger global picture.
I don't like America's response to climate change, I think it's petty and niggardly and that they are the primary reason the last two decades was wasted through inaction and I think their current targets are too weak.
I don't like it, I just don't try to deny it to score political points. Big difference, my friend. I'm not that shallow and insular.
Are you also aware that a reduction in "emissions intensity" equals overall an increase in emissions in both India and China. Their overall efforts are lip service and tokenism spun and woven to fool morons.
Yes.
Are you aware you making a straw man argument because I never pretended otherwise?
Or are you aware that every emissions scenario to keep the planet below 2 degrees involve China's emissions growing until at least the end of this decade, and well into the next. That is an accepted reality. China can't just turn off growth and emissions and no one expects they will. But if we are to keep within the kind of emissions scenario that can prevent a 4 -5 C. then there is increasing urgency that the developed world, which CAN wind nback its emissions with relatively little pain, start to do so. Because if the rest world adopts the attitude you want Australia to take then we'll be looking at 1000 - 2000 PPM by the turn of the century and 10 C. of warming that would put us into a hothouse world not experienced since the Eocene.
)