Harper is No Conservative. In His Black Soul, He's a Mangy Junkyard Dog Posing as a Conservative.

Richard Benyon, a Tory MP and former environment minister under David Cameron, writes that Tony Abbott is no Conservative.  By Mr. Benyon's standards, neither is Steve Harper.

Mr. Benyon wrote an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, in which he called out the Australian prime minister for rescinding the country's carbon tax, pulling government support for renewable energy and increasing his nation's exposure to climate risks.

Abbott's dismissal of climate science and his belief that Australia must choose between economic growth and tackling climate change speak to a distorted vision of what it means to be a conservative.

True conservative values include distaste for over-regulation and enthusiasm for entrepreneurialism. But they also include a respect for sound science and economics, a belief in protecting the natural world and a responsibility to do the best for the biggest possible number of one's citizens.

The first leader of any major nation to call for a United Nations treaty on climate change was Margaret Thatcher – Britain's greatest postwar Prime Minister and a standard bearer for the political right.

As a scientist she saw the threat posed by climate change. But she also believed in a vision of economic growth that went beyond the immediate interests of major corporations: "We must have continued economic growth in order to generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment. But it must be growth which does not plunder the planet today and leave our children to deal with the consequences tomorrow."

Benyon may have written that Abbott "distorted" what it means to be a conservative but I'm betting in the first draft he used "perverted."  For that's what our own Sideshow Steve has done.  He's perverted conservatism in Canada, raised his hind leg and pissed all over anything Edmund Burke would have recognized as conservative.

Australia Churns this Weekend

There'll be few calm moments this weekend as Australians prepare for Tuesday's "spill vote" that could see the removal of Tony Abbott as prime minister.

Some Aussies are having a lot of fun with it.  There's a group that blitzkrieged a pro-Abbott twitter account, #ImStickingWithTony.


#ImStickingWithTony because gay muslim refugee Aborigines are trying to destroy the sanctity of Andrew Bolt's right to marry free speech! — Pearson In The Wind (@LukeLPearson) February 7, 2015
#ImStickingWithTony so all you young people out there will be crushed with a HECS debt EVEN BIGGER than mine! — Comrade Badham (@vanbadham)February 7, 2015
#ImStickingWithTony because my columns write themselves when he's around. — John Birmingham (@JohnBirmingham) February 7, 2015
#ImStickingWithTony because I missed the 1950s the first time around — JS (@stevo_top14) February 7, 2015
#ImStickingWithTony like a pair speedos after a hot day at the beach. — Glen (@glengyron) February 7, 2015
Of course #imstickingwithtony because he says he is a feminist. Seriously, have we had a better Minister for Women? https://t.co/9CjZXuC5oA — Jenna Price (@JennaPrice)February 7, 2015
#ImStickingWithTony coz my gay friends shouldn't marry because, OMG, 2 vaginas?! There's only 1 vagina in cabinet. More than 1 is unnatural! — Fii (@fionaleighwest)February 7, 2015
#ImStickingWithTony because Cartoonist's kids deserve proper Nutrition @jonkudelka@cathywilcox1 — Julius Flywheel (@JuliusFlywheel) February 7, 2015

The Sydney Morning Herald says there are two factors going for Abbott.  First the prime minister only needs a bare majority, 50% + 1, to defeat the spill motion and counting his cabinet members and whips, he's already locked up almost as many votes as he'll need.  The second, and possibly most important, factor is that Abbott's only real rival, Malcolm Turnbull, is playing mute.  Turnbull supporters are urging their guy to come out and declare that he wants to replace Abbott before the Tuesday vote but, so far, he's held back.

Even if Abbott survives, he's probably mortally wounded.  If he just scrapes by he'll look like he's desperately holding onto power.  He'll be an ongoing drag on the party and it'll do nothing to help him regain the acceptance of Australian voters who already consider the guy something of a mean dork.

It's no comfort to the prime minister but the bunch that most wants him to survive is the opposition Labor Party.  Hands down Abbott is the best thing they've got going for them.

Well, They Do Have It Coming

If you can't stand the heat, get out of Australia.  A new report claims that the 'land down unda' will be hit harder by climate change impacts than the rest of the world.

It's a real 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' predicament.  Most of the country is already miserably hot.  Adding another 5.1 degrees Celsius by 2090 would be turning your oven up from 'roast' to 'broil.'

Good thing Aussie prime minister Tony Abbott, the King of Coal, and our own Stephen Harper are BFFs.  At some point Abbott might need Steve's help to get his family out of Australia and into some bearable part of Canada.

The Humiliation of Tony Abbott

Hosting a G20 summit is supposed to be prestigious.  You get the leaders of the world's largest economies to come to your country, to gather in your town, to discuss the great problems of the day.   As host you even get to set the agenda for the summit.  You get to steer all those big wigs and they're supposed to follow your lead.

Now, following the G20 pow wow in Australia, we may have come away with the "Brisbane Rule."  This applies in the situation where the host is a total dick. It operates to override the host's prerogative on setting the summit agenda.  It's sort of like saying, "Look, we didn't come here to put up with childishness."

Case in point.  Tony Abbott, inveterate fossil fueler that he is, struggled and strained mightily to thwart any discussion of climate change.  He resisted every request to place climate change on his agenda.  He had the backing of Canada and Saudi Arabia.  Three peas in a pod.  Nice one, Canada.

And so the grownups at the summit introduced the Brisbane Rule and discussed the climate change issue anyway.  To avoid completely humiliating their host they agreed their discussions would be behind closed doors.  All of this set the tone for the leaders' communique, a process one official described as "trench warfare."

Over the objections of Australia, Canada and Saudi Arabia, the communique calls for phasing out of "inefficient fossil fuel subsidies."

The communique included references to taking practical measures to combat global warming and an explicit endorsement of the climate fund.

As revealed by Fairfax Media, the communique includes a line: "We reaffirm our support for mobilising finance for adaptation and mitigation such as the Green Climate Fund."

The inclusion of a detailed passage on climate change comes despite the issue not being on the formal agenda of the G20 summit and Mr Abbott's insistence that the focus of discussions should be on economic reform.

Mr Abbott has said previously he opposed any financial contribution to the climate fund, which was reportedly described in a Cabinet document as a measure that amounted to "socialism masquerading as environmentalism".

The Green Climate Fund aims to assist poor nations combat climate change and relies primarily on funding from governments and private firms in industrialised countries. US president Barack Obama announced the US would devote $US3 billion to the fund, before he made a rallying call on Saturday for global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Japan pledged it would contribute $US1.5 billion to the climate fund on Sunday, taking the total commitment of nations so far to about $US8 billion. The fund wants to raise $US10-15 billion by the end of the month. 

What a novel idea, "polluter pays."  Yet even the paltry amount proposed for the Green Climate Fund sends miscreants like Abbott and Harper reeling.

It's a safe bet that Tony Abbott wasn't sad to see his visitors leave Australia.  The writing's on the wall.  It's not just environmentalists and the young any more. Now even their peers see Abbott and Harper as pariahs. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Simpson writes that, for Harper, international opprobrium is just water off his oily plumage.

It Sounds Good, Sort of, On Paper

It is an historic deal - if it ever comes to pass.  China and the US have made a pact to cut carbon emissions.  The US has promised to cut emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2020.  China has said it will peak its emissions by 2030 and begin cutting them thereafter. 

It is a "landmark" deal, if it ever happens.  Whether the envisioned cuts are enough and soon enough will be the subject of discussion for weeks to come.  Remember also, Obama is going to have to lay this out before a Congress now firmly in Republican control. 

Still, it's a deal of sorts and, in one way, the timing couldn't have been better.  The agreement will be the 800-pound gorilla in the room at the G20 summit in Australia where the host, knuckle-dragger Tony Abbott wants to fend off any discussion about climate change.

The China-US deal, atop the European Union's recent initiative for a 40% cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 will be awkward for the climate change bad boys, Abbott and his girlfriend, Stephen Harper.  Maybe Harper will find a Tim Horton's to open so he can duck the G20 entirely.  If not he'll probably fall back on his old trick and, when the discussion turns to CO2 emissions, just excuse himself to go to the bathroom for a couple of days.

These emission cuts agreements are important if they're matched by action.  That has to mean slashing fossil fuel consumption and increasing the renewable energy supply.  It's hardly consistent with Obama's "all of the above" energy policy.  His commitment to 2020 means new, very concrete programmes have to be launched almost immediately. 

It will be interesting to see what institutional investors make of the EU, US and Chinese initiatives.  If they're finally forced to acknowledge the "carbon bubble" it could be devastating to high cost/high carbon fossil fuels - such as bitumen, coal and seabed oil.  That would be Harper's Sword of Damocles. 

The Sydney Morning Herald reports the G20 delegations will have a global warming reminder this weekend.  Australia is being hammered by a heat wave.

Update - few of us really follow these agreements enough to make sense of them.  Reuters' John Kemp contends the deal is anything but "landmark".

OPEC Sees a Bright Future Ahead. Unfortunately, It's Not Yours.

As far as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, is concerned the future looks rosy.  In its latest outlook report, OPEC foresees $177 per barrel oil prices by 2040 and a market that will require an extra 21 million barrels a day over the next 25-years to meet growing demand.

I expect you know what this means.  If they're right, OPEC's future is very bright and yours, well, anything but.  It should, however, be music to the ears of our own Dark Prince, Harper, and his acolytes, Justin the Lesser and Terrible-Tempered Tom.

The findings of the report will come as a blow to climate change campaigners who are warning that unless serious action is taken to reduce green house emissions the world will face a catastrophic global warming shock beyond 2025.

Opec – which currently pumps about a third of the world’s oil – said that after the end of this decade the world will need to find an additional 1m bpd of crude annually through to 2040 when it forecasts that demand will reach 111.1m bpd up from about 90m bpd at current levels.

Although the figure is a slight downward revision from its previous report it highlights the continued dominant role that oil continues to play in the global energy mix despite warnings from the United Nations that urgent action is required to avoid a climate change catastrophe. According to Opec, Asia accounts for 71pc of demand growth in the developing world, with total global energy demand forecast to increase by 60pc through to 2040.

“It is fossil fuels that will continue to play the leading role in satisfying world energy needs in the future,” said Opec secretary general Abdalla Salem el-Badri on the publication of the 367-page report.

This seems to be in keeping with Aussie PM, Tony Abbott's recent pronouncement that "the foundation of the world's energy needs will be coal."

Meanwhile the International Energy Agency, IEA, three years ago gave us this clear warning:

"The world is likely to build so many fossil-fueled power stations, energy guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.

"Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this 'lock-in' effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found.  If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.

"'The door is closing,' Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. 'I am very worried - if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety].  The door will be closed forever.'" 

Bear in mind, also, that it was less than a month ago that the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, proclaimed that we are in a "carbon bubble" in which most fossil fuel reserves should be treated as "stranded assets."  Carney came to this conclusion on accepting that, if we're to avoid catastrophic climate change, 80 per cent of already known fossil fuel reserves would simply have to be left in the ground, unburned.  

What these messages from Tony Abbott, OPEC, and our own Stephen Harper convey is a subtle but very real declaration of war on the planet, on us and on those who will follow us.  They're not going to back off voluntarily, responsibly.
  

 

The New Republic Slams Harper, Abbott and Canada's "Government of Thugs"

It's an American publication so you'll have to excuse the hyperbole.  The New Republic, in an article entitled, "These Two World Leaders are Laughing While the World Burns Up," obviously conflated Stephen Harper and his Australian ventriloquist's dummy, Tony Abbott, with "world leaders."

Canada once had a shot at being the world's leader on climate change.  Back in 2002, our northern neighbours had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the world's first treaty that required nations to cut their emissions or face penalties.  In 2005, the country hosted an international climate change conference in Montreal, where then-Prime Minister Paul Martin singled out America for its indifference.  "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say this: There is such a thing as a global conscience," Martin said.

...According to a 2014 Climate Change Performance Index from European groups Climate Action Network Europe and Germanwatch, Canada and Australia occupy the bottom two spots among all 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).  Among the 20 countries with the largest economies (G20), only Saudi Arabia ranked lower than them. Canada and Australia's records on climate change have gotten so bad, they've become the go-to examples for Republicans, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who don't think climate change exists.

...On the way to his first trip in the U.S., Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott stopped for a full day of talks with Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper in June. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that Abbott was in Canada's capital with the intention of building a "conservative alliance among 'like-minded' countries" to try to dismantle global efforts on climate change. At a press conference that day, Harper applauded Abbott's efforts to gut Australia's carbon tax. "You’ve used this international platform to encourage our counterparts in the major economies and beyond to boost economic growth, to lower taxes when possible and to eliminate harmful ones, most notably the job-killing carbon tax," Harper said. He added that "we shouldn't clobber the economy" by pursuing an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax. 

ADVERTISEMENT

This is how Canada and Australia's top leaders frame global warming. The two stress that they will always choose short-term economic gain first, disregarding scientific findings and even the interests of their political allies in the process. The countries' abrupt shift on climate track conservatives' rise to a majority in Canada in 2011 and in Australia last year.

 The hostility toward environmental interests goes even deeper than energy policy. Harper has battled his own scientists, independent journalists, and environmental groups at odds with his views. 

 

Climate scientists have reported that they are unable to speak to press about their own findings, feeling effectively "muzzled" by agencies that want to script talking points for them. In June, a government spokesperson explained that federal meteorologists must speak only "to their area of expertise," which does not include climate change, according to a government spokesperson. Journalists sometimes face bullying, too. Environmental author Andrew Nikiforuk told ThinkProgress that "a government of thugs" slandered him and shut him out of events. But environmentalists may fare the worst. Seven environmental nonprofits in Canada have accused the Canada Revenue Agency of unfairly targeting them for audits. According to internal documents obtained by The Guardian, Canada's police and Security Intelligence Service identified nonviolent environmental protests—like people who oppose hydrofracking and the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline—as "forms of attack" fitting the "number of cases where we think people might be inclined to acts of terrorism." 

 

...A decade ago, our close allies due north and across the Pacific rightly shamed us on our poor response to climate change. Now, they've lost the moral high ground. At the September United Nations Climate Summit, the largest gathering of world leaders yet on the issue, both Abbott and Harper were no-shows. The ministers sent in their place also arrived empty-handed; Australia's foreign minister suggested that only larger countries should be responsible for more ambitious climate action. Canada Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq repeated an already-public commitment that Canada would copy Obama's fuel economy regulations requiring 35.5 miles per gallon. Afterward, in an interview with the Globe and Mail, Aglukkaq spoke of the unfairness of a global treaty. "It’s not up to one country to solve the global greenhouse-gas emissions. I mean, seriously now, it’s just not fair. We all have to do our part, big or small countries.”

 

That's true. If only her small country would do its part, too. 

 

A government of thugs indeed.  A government that disgraces our people and our country both at home and on the world stage.

The Green Devil - Australia's One Man Environmental Wrecking Crew

Tony Abbott is a man going to war.  His chosen target is Australia's environment and, according to Foreign Policy, he means to do it in.

Located at the bottom of the world, Tasmania is a bioregion so unique that it is listed as a World Heritage site by the United Nations for "outstanding universal value." It satisfies more criteria for that designation than any other World Heritage site on Earth.

But for Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, this remarkable natural legacy isn't worth protecting. Instead, it should be stripped.

Soon after being elected in September 2013, Abbott started making plans to fulfill his campaign promise of removing some environmental protections on Tasmania's forest and opening it to industry, specifically logging. In March, he invited loggers to Australia's Parliament House and told them that members of the country's Green party were "the devil" and that "the environment is meant for man." The loggers were thrilled.

A few months later, however, Abbott had to convince a different audience of his proposal -- and this time, the response was not enthusiastic. When the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) met in Doha in June 2014, it unanimously rejected Abbott's plan to remove 74,000 hectares of Tasmanian forest from its list of cherished sites. One delegate said the move would have set an "unacceptable precedent." Thedecision took less than 10 minutes.

While the old growth forest of Tasmania might have been spared, Tony Abbott is proceeding apace with other plans.  One of them is to dredge a new coal port and then to dump the millions of tons of dredged soil and sand into the Great Barrier Reef.  Honestly, this guy believes that's a sane thing to do.  To Abbott, trashing Australia is merely taking the fight to the socialists.

Australia's opposition leader, Bill Shorten, has called Abbott an "environmental vandal," and university researchers have said his first year in office has been nothing but an "environmental train wreck." This dates back to his very first day in office, when Abbott introduced legislation to repeal a carbon tax on Australia's most polluting industries. Soon after, a document created by Abbott's cabinet surfaced, stating that his administration would no longer tolerate "any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism."

And Abbott is increasingly and eerily coming to resemble our very own environmental Beelzebub.

Feel like a sauna?  You betcha.

For Abbott, all environmental regulations are merely "green tape" that hold back corporate profits. He has hacked away at that tape by gutting the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the legislative process for determining whether a development project is environmentally safe. Instead oil, gas, and mining permits are now funneled to other agencies where they can get a green stamp.

To make sure no one can adequately challenge his dictums, Abbott has eviscerated federal funding for programs such as the Environmental Defenders Offices (EDO), independent legal centers that operate in the public interest. 

It sounds as though Harper must have slipped Abbott a copy of the Conservatives' own environmental dirty play book.

Environmental author Bill McKibben has written that Americans who traveled abroad during George W. Bush's administration should have sympathy for Australians right now: "[I]t's not easy being citizens of countries run by international laughing stocks." The comparison is apt: Like the Bush administration, Abbott chooses to ignore or undercut federal and international law when it doesn't suit his interests.

Yet he has no qualms about using the law as a political hammer to quash the opposition: In Tasmania right now, Abbott's Liberal Party government is backing a new bill explicitly drafted to stop environmental protesters. The Workplaces (Protection From Protesters) Bill is aimed at quelling those who "prevent, impede or obstruct the carrying out of business activities." Mining and logging industries are mentioned by name, but the bill is written so broadly that it could cover nearly any business. It includes a sweeping list of prohibitions against "protest activity," with fines up to $10,000 if demonstrations interrupt business -- and mandatory prison sentences for a second offense.

I don't mean to be cynical but I'd guess the only thing preventing Harper from passing his own, protection from protesters act in advance of the Northern Gateway pipeline is the cut lip and bloody nose he's earned in past encounters with the Supreme Court of Canada.  I have to assume that Abbott has the benefit of a weaker constitution and a more compliant court.

Australia's Senate Drops Climate Change Wrench into General Election

The contenders to form Australia's next national government have night & day differences on climate change.   The incumbent, Labor's Kevin Rudd, trails his rival, Tony Abbott's Liberal Coalition, 48 to 52.  Abbott is a strong climate change denier.

Now into the mix comes a bipartisan report from the Australian Senate, "Dangerous Degrees", that warns Australia is more vulnerable to climate change than just about any other country in the world.

The Senate panel, which includes Labor, Coalition and Greens members, recommended that "credible and reliable flood mapping" be introduced, along with better access to insurance and amended building codes, in order to help Australia cope with floods, storms and bushfires. The insurance industry has welcomed its findings.
 
The Greens called for the committee in the wake of the Queensland floods in 2010 and 2011. Christine Milne, the Greens' leader, told Guardian Australia that urgent reform was needed to better prepare Australia for extreme weather.
 
"Local governments aren't changing planning schemes fast enough to prevent people building on floodplains," she said. "And we still haven't got to the point where either of the old parties have a consistent, precautionary approach to climate change.

The report, called Dangerous Degrees, warned that current warming trends would see a temperature increase of at least four degrees by 2100 – well above the internationally agreed limit of two degrees warming.
 
This change, the study stated, could significantly affect Australia's social stability, diminish natural resources such as water and trigger greater sea level rises.
 
[Former Liberal leader] John Hewson helped unveil the report and said that climate change could carry an economic cost that would make the global financial crisis seem like a "blip".

John Connor, chief executive of the Climate Institute, said Australia was more exposed to climate change risks than any other developed nation.

"There is a big and growing gap between the emissions pathway we're on and the one we need to be on to avoid unmanageable, costly climate risks," he said.

Abbott's coalition, seeking to dodge the Senate bullet, claimed to welcome the report as a great starting point for further study.  In other words, they're trying to Harperize it, make it go away.